Case 3303408/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J G Chitty v G & S Valves Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3303408/2022
- Decision date
- 27 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J G Chitty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Reading on 6 and 7 March 2023, before Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst, the tribunal determined Mr J G Chitty's claims against G & S Valves Limited. The written record states that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed, the redundancy payment claim was not well-founded and was dismissed, and the breach of contract claim concerning notice pay was not well-founded and was dismissed.
The holiday pay claim was recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment does not contain written reasons for the substantive decisions, noting instead that reasons were given orally at the hearing and would not be provided in writing unless requested in time. No monetary award was made in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claim for a redundancy payment was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim concerned notice pay and was recorded as not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the holiday pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.