Case 3305085/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Singh v Mitchells and Butlers Retail Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305085/2024
- Decision date
- 18 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Read Appearances
- Venue
- Reading via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr J Singh, did not attend the final hearing at Reading via CVP on 18 December 2024, and no representative attended for him. The respondent, Mitchells and Butlers Retail Ltd, was represented by Ms L Leach. Employment Judge Read made the judgment in accordance with Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for a redundancy payment, recording that it was not well-founded. It also dismissed the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages, recording that it was not well-founded. No monetary award or remedy was recorded in the written judgment.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the specified time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment records that the redundancy payment claim was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, Rule 47
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.