Case 3332461/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Claimant v Greencity Solutions Ltd and Chess ICT Ltd — 2021

Case reference: 3332461/2018
Decision date: 26 August 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Kurrein Statement

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Respondent

Greencity Solutions Ltd and Chess ICT Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The judgment records linked case numbers 3332461/2018 and 3332462/2018, heard remotely by CVP on 2 August 2021 before Employment Judge Kurrein. Mr Hunt appeared in person with a McKenzie friend, Mr Hurst was represented by counsel, Greencity Solutions Ltd did not appear and was not represented, and Chess ICT Limited was represented by counsel.

The written judgment states only that the claimants' claims were not well founded and must be dismissed. It adds that reasons were 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 decision text provided.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	The judgment does not separate findings by cause of action; this claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK listing category. The written record states that the claimants' claims were not well founded and must be dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The judgment does not separate findings by cause of action; this claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK listing category. The written record states that the claimants' claims were not well founded and must be dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The judgment does not separate findings by cause of action; this claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK listing category. The written record states that the claimants' claims were not well founded and must be dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—

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 .

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.