Case 3201454/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Health & Safety Executive (Inspector Julian Charles Tuvey) — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201454/2019
- Decision date
- 8 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher CONSENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a consent judgment in an appeal by Amber Construction Services Ltd against two notices issued by the Health and Safety Executive on 1 May 2019. Pursuant to Rule 64 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal ordered by consent that the Prohibition Notice and the Improvement Notice be cancelled.
The judgment did not record any substantive findings on the merits of the underlying health and safety issues. It also recorded that the parties were to seek agreement on the appellant's costs, with permission for the appellant to apply for costs within 28 days if no agreement was reached, and the hearing listed for 30 August 2019 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | By consent, the tribunal ordered cancellation of the Prohibition Notice issued on 1 May 2019. This was an appeal concerning a health and safety notice rather than a standard employment claim. | Settled | — | — |
| Other | By consent, the tribunal ordered cancellation of the Improvement Notice issued on 1 May 2019. This was an appeal concerning a health and safety notice rather than a standard employment claim. | Settled | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 64 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.