Case 2503437/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Matthews First v Profile Security Services Limited Third Respondent: Tyne Tees Security Limited Fourth Respondent: Port of Tyne Public Limited Company — 2026
- Case reference
- 2503437/2018
- Decision date
- 29 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Matthews First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 24 December 2019, Employment Judge Aspden Date issued a rule 52 judgment recording that the proceedings against Profile Security Services Limited, Tyne Tees Security Limited and Port of Tyne Public Limited Company were dismissed after Mr D Matthews withdrew his claims.
The extracted text records no substantive findings on liability and no remedy award. It is a withdrawal judgment only, so the tribunal did not determine the merits of the underlying claims in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Judgment states the proceedings were dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal of the claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Judgment states the proceedings were dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal of the claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment states the proceedings were dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal of the claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment states the proceedings were dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal of the claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Judgment states the proceedings were dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal of the claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.