Case 3302404/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Pink v N2O Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302404/2023
- Decision date
- 3 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Pink
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was before Employment Judge Anstis sitting alone at Reading by CVP on 24 May 2024. The written judgment records that all claims except the claimant’s claim of protected disclosure detriments were dismissed on withdrawal. On that basis, the tribunal disposed of the non-whistleblowing claims by withdrawal rather than after a contested liability decision.
The judgment does not set out further findings on the merits of the surviving protected disclosure detriments claim, and it does not record any compensation award to the claimant. It does, however, order the claimant to pay the respondent £200 in respect of costs. The written record also states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed on withdrawal; the written record does not give a separate monetary award for this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed on withdrawal; the written record does not give a separate monetary award for this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £200
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.