Case 3310971/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Lo, Counsel For the v Mr M Cameron, Consultant — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310971/2020
- Decision date
- 17 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Lo, Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claimant, Richard Harris, withdrew all claims brought under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 and the claim for a redundancy payment under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal dismissed those claims upon withdrawal; no substantive liability findings are recorded in the text provided.
The judgment does not set out any award of compensation or other remedy, and it does not record any split between claims for monetary purposes. It is a short disposal judgment only, with the case ending on withdrawal rather than after a contested merits hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal recorded that all claims under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 were dismissed upon their withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal recorded that the claim for a redundancy payment under the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed upon its withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.