Case 2502519/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Terence Watson v Wienerberger Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2502519/2023
- Decision date
- 13 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Legard
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Terence Watson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Legard recorded that terms of settlement had been agreed between Mr Michael Terence Watson and Wienerberger Ltd. The Tribunal therefore stayed the claim for 28 days from 13 June 2024 to allow the terms to be incorporated into a COT3 agreement and carried into effect.
The order stated that, unless either party applied to lift the stay within that period, the claim would stand dismissed upon withdrawal without further judgment or order. The written record also noted that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and would not be provided in writing unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Terms of settlement were agreed; the Tribunal stayed the claim for 28 days to allow a COT3 agreement to be completed. If no application to lift the stay was made, the claim was to stand dismissed upon withdrawal without further judgment or order. | Settled | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Terms of settlement were agreed; the Tribunal stayed the claim for 28 days to allow a COT3 agreement to be completed. If no application to lift the stay was made, the claim was to stand dismissed upon withdrawal without further judgment or order. | Settled | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.