Case 3322403/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Badara v Pulse Healthcare Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3322403/2016
- Decision date
- 18 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Henderson
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mrs D Olulode, Mrs J Keene
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Badara
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn the second day of the remitted hearing in London Central on 20 and 21 January 2020, the parties agreed Terms of Settlement after the claimant had spoken to ACAS and signed a COT3 form. The Tribunal therefore did not determine the substantive remitted issues by way of findings on liability.
The Tribunal made no order in respect of the claim for unlawful deduction of wages covering 16 October to 17 November 2015. It recorded that the remainder of the claimant's remitted claims were withdrawn. The withdrawn claims were to be dismissed on 18 February 2020, being 14 days after the due date of payment in the settlement terms, unless the claimant notified the Tribunal in writing that payment had not been made.
No order for costs was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | On 20-21 January 2020 the parties agreed Terms of Settlement and signed a COT3; the Tribunal made no order in respect of the unlawful deduction of wages claim for 16 October to 17 November 2015. | Settled | — | — |
| Other | The remainder of the claimant's remitted claims were withdrawn. The Tribunal ordered that the withdrawn claims would be dismissed on 18 February 2020 unless the claimant notified the Tribunal in writing that payment had not been made in accordance with the settlement terms. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.