Case 3321938/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hayes v EV Group Ltd (previously known as ACF Telehandlers Ltd) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3321938/2019
- Decision date
- 28 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Hayes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the complaint of unpaid redundancy pay was dismissed following a withdrawal by the Claimant. That claim was therefore not determined on its merits, and the judgment does not record any award in respect of it.
The judgment also states that the Claimant's remaining claims were stayed because of the Respondent's administration. No findings on liability were made in this judgment in relation to those stayed claims, and no remedy was assessed.
The decision is a short case management judgment only. It records the procedural position as at 24 February 2020 and does not set out factual findings, legal tests, or a substantive merits outcome for the stayed claims.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the complaint of unpaid redundancy pay was dismissed following a withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment says the Claimant's remaining claims were stayed in view of the Respondent's administration and were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment says the Claimant's remaining claims were stayed in view of the Respondent's administration and were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment says the Claimant's remaining claims were stayed in view of the Respondent's administration and were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment says the Claimant's remaining claims were stayed in view of the Respondent's administration and were not determined. | 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.