Case 2601564/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. K Rushin v Anstey Plant Limited and 2 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601564/2019
- Decision date
- 4 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Date
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr. K Rushin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case listing for 2601564/2019 identifies unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, and working time complaints. In the rule 52 withdrawal judgment dated 4 November 2019, Employment Judge Heap recorded that the proceedings against Anstey Plant Limited, Paul Bassford t/a Anstey Skip and Plant, and Paul Bassford t/a Anstew Skip Hire were dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal of the claim.
The judgment contains no merits findings on liability, no findings on remedy, and no monetary award. It is a procedural disposal only, and the written record does not identify any further substantive issues or panel members.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim. The claim type is taken from the case listing supplied in the case context, because the written judgment does not repeat the underlying complaints. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim. The claim type is taken from the case listing supplied in the case context, because the written judgment does not repeat the underlying complaints. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim. The claim type is taken from the case listing supplied in the case context, because the written judgment does not repeat the underlying complaints. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 52
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.