Case 3306446/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr R Walker, HR Director CONSENT — 2020
- Case reference
- 3306446/2019
- Decision date
- 6 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Attendance
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the parties had agreed terms set out in a COT3 agreement with the assistance of ACAS. By consent, all proceedings against the respondent arising out of case number 3306446/2019 were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant under rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The listed hearing fixed for 2 to 6 November 2020 was vacated. The judgment does not contain findings on liability, does not identify any monetary award, and does not split the disposal between the individual claim heads.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Disposed of by the blanket dismissal upon withdrawal under rule 52 following a COT3 agreement; the judgment does not split the claim heads separately. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Disposed of by the blanket dismissal upon withdrawal under rule 52 following a COT3 agreement; the judgment does not split the claim heads separately. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Disposed of by the blanket dismissal upon withdrawal under rule 52 following a COT3 agreement; the judgment does not split the claim heads separately. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Disposed of by the blanket dismissal upon withdrawal under rule 52 following a COT3 agreement; the judgment does not split the claim heads separately. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.