Case 3213286/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Bates v Westbury Garden Rooms Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3213286/2020
- Decision date
- 27 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Speker OBE
- Panel members
- Mrs M Legg, Ms P Alford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Bates
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely at East London Hearing Centre on 20 April 2022 before Employment Judge Speker OBE DL, sitting with members Mrs M Legg and Ms P Alford. The claimant was represented by Mr O Winters and the respondent by Mr M Williams.
The judgment records that terms of settlement had been agreed between the parties and recorded in a Form COT3. As a result, the hearing was stayed rather than determined on the merits. The tribunal stated that the claims would be dismissed on withdrawal unless the claimant wrote to the tribunal by 4pm on 12 May 2022 to request relisting if the agreed terms were not implemented.
No findings of fact or liability were made on the substantive disability discrimination or unfair dismissal issues. The only recorded outcome is settlement, subject to the relisting mechanism if implementation of the agreed terms did not occur.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Terms of settlement were agreed and recorded in a Form COT3; the judgment stayed the hearing and provided that the claim would be dismissed on withdrawal unless the claimant sought relisting if the agreed terms were not implemented by 4pm on 12 May 2022. | Settled | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Terms of settlement were agreed and recorded in a Form COT3; the judgment stayed the hearing and provided that the claim would be dismissed on withdrawal unless the claimant sought relisting if the agreed terms were not implemented by 4pm on 12 May 2022. | Settled | — | — |
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.