Case 3321054/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Arundel v Haas Formula UK Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3321054/2019
- Decision date
- 21 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Arundel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Eeley sat alone at Reading via CVP on 5 and 6 October 2021. The claimant, Mr J Arundel, brought a claim of automatically unfair dismissal for asserting a statutory right under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and claims alleging breaches of regulations 10, 11, 12 and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. Those claims failed and were dismissed.
The judgment also records claims for unauthorised deductions from wages and unpaid holiday pay. Those claims were withdrawn by the claimant and are stated in the judgment to be dismissed upon withdrawal. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim of automatically unfair dismissal for asserting a statutory right under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claims that the respondent breached regulations 10, 11, 12 and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deductions from wages; the judgment records it as dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid holiday pay; the judgment records it as dismissed upon 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 | Withdrawn | — | — |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.
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.