Case 3310001/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Mr R Rajham (HM Inspector of Health and Safety) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310001/2021
- Decision date
- 9 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an appeal under section 24 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 by Mr Camillus Dynes t/a C P Dynes against an Improvement Notice dated 23 April 2021, reference RDR 210423 I1. The judgment records that it was a consent judgment and that the respondent no longer opposed the appeal.
The tribunal ordered that the appellant's appeal be allowed and that the Improvement Notice be cancelled. The reasons state that the respondent agreed to withdraw or cancel outstanding invoices issued to the appellant in relation to the matters underpinning the Improvement Notice and agreed not to issue any further invoices in relation to the Improvement Notice or the underlying facts.
The tribunal made no order as to costs. No monetary award was made, and no separate compensation or other financial remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Appeal under section 24 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 against Improvement Notice dated 23 April 2021 (reference RDR 210423 I1). Determined by consent; the appeal was allowed and the Improvement Notice cancelled. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.