Case 3319458/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Wignal v British Gas Services Limited and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 3319458/2019
- Decision date
- 15 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr David Wignal
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claimant withdrew the complaint of race discrimination against the first respondent. That complaint was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
The judgment also records that the claim against the second respondent was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract in respect of notice pay, and unauthorised deduction from wages against the first respondent were not withdrawn and were to proceed to hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The complaint of race discrimination against the first respondent was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Other | The claim against the second respondent was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant; the extracted judgment does not identify the claim type against the second respondent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint against the first respondent was not withdrawn and was to proceed to hearing; no substantive outcome is determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint was identified as notice pay, was not withdrawn, and was to proceed to hearing; no substantive outcome is determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unauthorised deduction from wages complaint against the first respondent was not withdrawn and was to proceed to hearing; no substantive outcome is determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 52
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.