Case 2502682/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P McLaughlin Mr M Chappell v Basins, Pedestals and Loos Ltd – In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation Secretary of State for Business & Trade — 2025
- Case reference
- 2502682/2023
- Decision date
- 25 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P McLaughlin Mr M Chappell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter was heard at Newcastle Employment Tribunal via CVP on 25 June 2025 before Employment Judge Jeram. The written record states that Mr Chappell's claims were dismissed because he withdrew them. No separate written reasons were provided in the record because reasons were given orally at the hearing, subject to any request for written reasons within 14 days.
Mr McLaughlin's claims for redundancy pay, wages, holiday pay and notice pay were each found not well founded and dismissed. The judgment does not set out further reasoning in the written record provided, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Mr Chappell's claims were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The judgment does not specify the underlying heads of claim in the written record provided. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Mr McLaughlin's redundancy pay claim was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr McLaughlin's wages claim was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Mr McLaughlin's holiday pay claim was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Mr McLaughlin's notice pay claim was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.