Case 3323605/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Hagues v And Moto Hospitality Limited Held by CVP on 4 and 5 August 2021 — 2021
- Case reference
- 3323605/2019
- Decision date
- 27 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kurrein Statement
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Hagues
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by CVP on 4 and 5 August 2021. The written record states that a face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and that the documents referred to were contained in a 421-page bundle. The judgment was sent in written form on 29 September 2021.
The tribunal's conclusion in the written judgment was limited to a single finding: the claimant's claims were not well founded and had to be dismissed. No separate reasons for the dismissal are set out in the written record provided here.
The written note states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment extract.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim head inferred from the gov.uk listing supplied in the case context; the written judgment itself states only that the claimant's claims were not well founded and must be dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim head inferred from the gov.uk listing supplied in the case context; the written judgment itself states only that the claimant's claims were not well founded and must be dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.