Case 3331913/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Mahmood, Counsel For the v Mr A G Crow, Chief Executive Officer CONSENT — 2020
- Case reference
- 3331913/2018
- Decision date
- 24 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr P Miller, Mr D Sutton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Mahmood, Counsel For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a consent judgment at Watford before Employment Judge Bedeau, with lay members Mr P Miller and Mr D Sutton. The parties, represented by Mr G Mahmood for the claimant and Mr A G Crow for the respondents, informed the tribunal that they had agreed terms in a written settlement agreement signed by them or on their behalf.
The judgment does not record any merits findings on the underlying claims. Instead, it records that proceedings were withdrawn on compliance by the respondents with the settlement terms on or before 4pm on 10 February 2020. It also states that if no application was made by 4pm on 24 February 2020, all claims against the respondents would be dismissed without further order.
No monetary award or split remedy was recorded in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Consent judgment. The parties had agreed terms in a written settlement agreement signed by them or on their behalf. Proceedings were to be withdrawn on compliance with the settlement terms by 4pm on 10 February 2020, and if no application was made by 4pm on 24 February 2020, all claims against the respondents were to be dismissed without further order. | Settled | — | — |
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.