Case 2602054/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M G Mawby v Charnwood Borough Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602054/2019
- Decision date
- 25 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Blackwell
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M G Mawby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Mawby presented a claim on 12 July 2019. On 24 July 2019 he emailed the Tribunal saying that he wished to withdraw his claim. On 28 July 2019 he sent a further email saying that his offer to withdraw was conditional on the Respondent waiving any claim for costs. The Tribunal noted that none of those emails had been copied to the Respondent. At the preliminary hearing on 21 October 2019, Mr Mawby said he had been acting on advice from solicitors appointed by his trade union Unison and that he was confused as to the legal position.
Employment Judge Blackwell applied rules 51 and 52 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records that, once a claimant informs the Tribunal in writing that a claim is withdrawn, the claim comes to an end subject to any application by the respondent for costs, preparation time or wasted costs. The Judge concluded that, on the facts of this case, the Tribunal was required to issue a judgment under rule 52. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. No merits determination and no monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim form described the case as a single claim of constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal's operative judgment dismissed the claim under rule 52 after the claimant had notified withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 51 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 52 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.