Case 2604230/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Holterman v Woodard Schools (Nottinghamshire) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2604230/2020
- Decision date
- 22 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heathcote
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Holterman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a procedural judgment heard at Nottingham via CVP on 22 September 2022 before Employment Judge Heathcote sitting alone. The Claimant, Mr M Holterman, appeared in person and the Respondent, Woodard Schools (Nottinghamshire) Ltd, was represented by counsel.
The only decision recorded was that the Claimant's application to set aside the Unless Order dated 1 April 2022, made under Rule 38(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, was refused. No separate substantive liability claim or compensation award is recorded in this written decision.
The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The Claimant's application to set aside the Unless Order dated 1 April 2022 under Rule 38(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(2) of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.