Case 3303786/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Mandjolo v Vale Europe Ltd Mr P Sillwood and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 3303786/2019
- Decision date
- 2 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr I Mandjolo
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Smail, held at Watford on 2 December 2019 and 14 February 2020, the tribunal dealt with three linked claims under case numbers 3303786/2019, 3319011/2019 and 3321089/2019. The judgment records no substantive merits determination.
The First and Second Claimants' claims were struck out because they had been settled under a binding compromise agreement. The Third Claimant's claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The short judgment does not record any monetary award, and it does not set out any legal test or liability findings beyond the procedural disposal of the claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal recorded that the First Claimant's claim was struck out because it had been settled under a binding compromise agreement. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal recorded that the Second Claimant's claim was struck out because it had been settled under a binding compromise agreement. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal recorded that the Third Claimant's 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 | Withdrawn | — | — |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.