Case 2601530/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Roe v A W Curtis Bakers and Butchers Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601530/2019
- Decision date
- 11 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Blackwell
- Venue
- Lincoln
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Roe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Lincoln on 16 October 2019 before Employment Judge Blackwell sitting alone. The written judgment dated 11 November 2019 records that the parties had agreed terms of settlement by a COT3 agreement by consent, and that all Mr Roe’s claims before the tribunal were dismissed on withdrawal.
No merits findings are recorded in the judgment. The record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The case was therefore disposed of by consent rather than by a substantive determination of the underlying claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the parties had agreed terms of settlement by a COT3 agreement by consent and that this claim was dismissed on withdrawal; no merits finding is given. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the parties had agreed terms of settlement by a COT3 agreement by consent and that this claim was dismissed on withdrawal; no merits finding is given. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that the parties had agreed terms of settlement by a COT3 agreement by consent and that this claim was dismissed on withdrawal; no merits finding is given. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.