Case 2601882/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr MJ Needs v Amplifon Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601882/2019
- Decision date
- 19 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr MJ Needs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Nottingham Justice Centre on 19 November 2019 before Employment Judge Adkinson sitting alone. The claimant, Mr MJ Needs, appeared in person and the respondent, Amplifon Ltd (UK), was represented by Mr T Cross, consultant. After hearing the evidence and representations of each party, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims for breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The written record does not set out the tribunal's oral reasons for those dismissals. It records only the outcome and notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's usual practice. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written record states that the claimant's breach of contract claim was dismissed after the hearing. It does not set out the tribunal's oral reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written record states that the claimant's unlawful deduction of wages claim under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. It does not set out the tribunal's oral reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.