Case 2601511/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Lambert v Mr Richard Kay-Warner and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2601511/2019
- Decision date
- 27 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr S Lambert
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 27 March 2020, heard in private by telephone before Employment Judge Clark sitting alone, the tribunal recorded that the claims against Mr Richard Kay-Warner were dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment does not identify the specific claim type(s) in that dismissal line.
The unfair dismissal claim against Beechdale Care Limited was also dismissed upon withdrawal. No substantive findings on liability were made in this judgment, and no monetary award was recorded.
For the avoidance of doubt, the unauthorised deduction from wages claim against Beechdale Care Limited was left to proceed and was listed for a final hearing on 4 September 2020 if not agreed before then.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment dismisses the claims against Mr Richard Kay-Warner upon withdrawal, but does not specify the individual claim type(s) in that line. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim against Beechdale Care Limited was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the unauthorised deduction from wages claim against Beechdale Care Limited proceeds to a final hearing on 4 September 2020 if not agreed before. | Other | — | — |
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.