Case 3323118/2016 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Crozier (Counsel) v Respondent — 2017

Case reference: 3323118/2016
Decision date: 20 December 2017
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Smail Appearances
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr J Crozier (Counsel)

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Smail at Watford. The tribunal refused the respondent's application for a stay. It recorded that the claims against the Second and Third Respondents were dismissed upon withdrawal in the Winney and Potts multiples, leaving the claims against the present respondent live, and that Mr Kelly's claims for holiday pay and unauthorised deductions from wages were also dismissed upon withdrawal.

No substantive jurisdiction decision was made at this hearing. Instead, the tribunal listed a four-day preliminary hearing on jurisdiction for 16 to 19 October 2018 and made case-management orders for schedules of loss by 15 February 2018, disclosure by 28 March 2018, bundle preparation by 30 April 2018, and exchange of witness statements by 7 September 2018.

The judgment also stated that failure to comply with disclosure could lead to a fine of up to £1,000 under section 7(4) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, and that an unless order could provide for strike out on non-compliance without further hearing.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Claims against the Second and Third Respondents in the Winney and Potts multiples were dismissed upon withdrawal. The extract does not specify the underlying cause of action for those claims.	Withdrawn	—	—
Holiday pay	Mr Kelly's holiday pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Mr Kelly's claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was dismissed upon withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.