Case 3314887/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A McPhail, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3314887/2023
- Decision date
- 20 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr A McPhail, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal refused the Respondent's application for an extension of time to serve its Response and Grounds of Resistance. It also granted the Claimant leave to amend his Particulars of Claim in accordance with the application dated 9 December 2024.
The proceedings were stayed because of civil proceedings in the Central London County Court between the same parties. The parties were directed to update the Employment Tribunal on those proceedings, and the Respondent was permitted under Rule 21(3) to participate in a remedy hearing only to the extent of making submissions.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The gov.uk listing identifies breach of contract, but the judgment is procedural and does not determine this claim. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing identifies unfair dismissal, but the judgment is procedural and does not determine this claim. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing identifies unlawful deduction from wages, but the judgment is procedural and does not determine this claim. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing identifies Working Time Regulations, but the judgment is procedural and does not determine this claim. | Other | — | — |
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.