Case 2600523/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andrew Habgood v Young’s Seafood Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600523/2021
- Decision date
- 27 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkey Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Andrew Habgood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 25 April 2022, Employment Judge Sharkey heard the respondent's applications in relation to Mr Andrew Habgood's claims for ordinary unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unauthorised deduction from wages. The respondent sought strike-out on the basis that those claims had no reasonable prospect of success, and also sought deposit orders in respect of the automatic unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unauthorised deduction from wages claims on the basis that they had little reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal refused the strike-out application across the claims. It also refused the deposit applications for automatic unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unauthorised deduction from wages. The only application that succeeded was the respondent's application for a deposit order in respect of the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, which the judgment says is set out in a separate order accompanying the judgment.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No final liability determination or monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal. The respondent's strike-out application was refused, but the respondent's deposit application succeeded and the deposit order was dealt with in a separate order accompanying the judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal. The respondent's strike-out application was refused and the respondent's deposit application was refused. | Other | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The respondent's strike-out application was refused and the respondent's deposit application was refused. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent's strike-out application was refused and the respondent's deposit application was refused. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- little reasonable prospect of success
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.