Case 3312685/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D v T Bourner and Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) Held by CVP on 11 November 2021 — 2021
- Case reference
- 3312685/2020
- Decision date
- 6 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kurrein Statement
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by CVP on 11 November 2021 before Employment Judge Kurrein. The claimant, Mr D T Bourner, did not appear or have representation. The respondent, Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster), was represented by Mr B Hodgson, solicitor. The tribunal noted that the hearing was remote because it was not practicable to hold a face-to-face hearing and the issues could be determined remotely.
The written record states that the tribunal had a bundle of 87 pages. The judgment itself is brief and does not set out separate findings on each pleaded claim. It records only that the claimant's claims were not well founded and must be dismissed.
The decision was sent to the parties and entered in the register on 6 December 2021. The record also states that reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written record states generally that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed; it does not separate findings by individual claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written record states generally that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed; it does not separate findings by individual claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written record states generally that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed; it does not separate findings by individual claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written record states generally that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed; it does not separate findings by individual claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.