Case 3306706/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Dr James Holt c/o Matt Fox, Liquidator of Abracadabra Leaflet Distribution Ltd and others — 2019
- Case reference
- 3306706/2019
- Decision date
- 12 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lang
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 12 December 2019 before Employment Judge Lang sitting alone, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints against R1, R3 and R4 were dismissed because they were withdrawn. The judgment does not set out the substantive nature of those complaints in this record, and it does not record any merits determination in respect of them.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant's complaint against R2, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, continued. No finding is given in this written record on that complaint, and no remedy was assessed. The decision is therefore limited to the withdrawal-based dismissal of the complaints against R1, R3 and R4.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claimant's complaints against R1 (Dr James Holt c/o Matt Fox, Liquidator of Abracadabra Leaflet Distribution Ltd), R3 (Abracadabra Leaflet Distribution Ltd) and R4 (Kare Group Ltd) were dismissed on withdrawal. The complaint against R2 (The Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy) continued and was not determined in this judgment. | Withdrawn | — | — |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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.