Case 2601072/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Christopher Verity v Rayden Engineering Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601072/2022
- Decision date
- 5 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Christopher Verity
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Wilson, sitting alone at Nottingham on 5 September 2022, made a judgment by consent. The order records that the parties had agreed terms of settlement.
The Tribunal stayed the proceedings for implementation of those terms until 19 September 2022. The order states that, if no party wrote to the Tribunal within the stay period to say the settlement terms had not taken effect, the claim would automatically be dismissed upon withdrawal.
The judgment contains no findings on liability, no determination of the pleaded claims on their merits, and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Judgment by consent; proceedings stayed pending implementation of settlement terms and no merits findings were made. | Settled | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment by consent; proceedings stayed pending implementation of settlement terms and no merits findings were made. | Settled | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment by consent; proceedings stayed pending implementation of settlement terms and no merits findings were made. | Settled | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Judgment by consent; proceedings stayed pending implementation of settlement terms and no merits findings were made. | 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.