Case 3306382/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Gill v Micrologic Property Holdings Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3306382/2021
- Decision date
- 15 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Gill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a costs judgment rather than a liability judgment. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had withdrawn the claim shortly before the hearing listed for 3 October 2022, and the respondent applied for its costs in consequence.
Employment Judge Hawksworth held that the respondent's application for costs succeeded in part and ordered the claimant to pay £1,200. The written record does not set out any substantive findings on the withdrawn employment claims, and it notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The judgment also states that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record. No lay members are listed, and no discrimination characteristics or legal tests are identified in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment is a costs decision only. The tribunal held that the respondent's application for costs succeeded in part and ordered the claimant to pay £1,200 in respect of costs incurred because the claim was withdrawn shortly before the hearing on 3 October 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,200 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,200
- 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.