Case 2602419/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr M Pearson, Director — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602419/2021
- Decision date
- 11 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Nottingham on 4 March 2022, Employment Judge Hutchinson sitting alone recorded a settlement reached by consent. The respondent agreed to pay the claimant £450 by 11 March 2022 in full and final settlement of all claims made to the Employment Tribunal.
The judgment states that the claims were to be treated as withdrawn and dismissed. It also records the claimant's agreement not to post disparaging remarks about the respondent on social media. The judgment contains no findings on liability or a merits-based determination of the claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the respondent would pay £450 in full and final settlement of all claims and that the claims would be treated as withdrawn and dismissed. The specific claim type is taken from the case listing categories. | Settled | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the respondent would pay £450 in full and final settlement of all claims and that the claims would be treated as withdrawn and dismissed. The specific claim type is taken from the case listing categories. | Settled | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the respondent would pay £450 in full and final settlement of all claims and that the claims would be treated as withdrawn and dismissed. The specific claim type is taken from the case listing categories. | Settled | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £450
- across all upheld claims
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.