Case 3325279/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hart v And R1 – The Abbeyfield (Maidenhead) Society R2 – David Martin Cager R3 – David George Yates R4 – Shirley Fairley R5 – Donna Bristow Hearing — 2019
- Case reference
- 3325279/2017
- Decision date
- 8 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mrs C Baggs, Mr D Palmer
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on 7 October 2019 concerned with the position of the individual respondents rather than the merits of the underlying claims. The first respondent, The Abbeyfield (Maidenhead) Society, undertook to the tribunal and the claimant that it would accept liability for the conduct of the second to fifth respondents, who were its employees, and would accept responsibility for any remedy awarded by the tribunal in respect of their conduct. It also undertook to call them as witnesses at the re-listed full merits hearing and not to rely on the defence in section 109(4) Equality Act 2010.
In reliance on that undertaking, the claimant withdrew the claims against the second to fifth respondents in their individual capacities, and those respondents were removed from the proceedings. The judgment records that all claims would continue against the first respondent. No substantive liability findings or monetary award were made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claimant withdrew the claims against the second to fifth respondents individually after the first respondent gave an undertaking accepting liability for their conduct and responsibility for any remedy. The judgment does not identify the substantive claim types in this procedural decision. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.