Case 4101542/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. L. Sanderson v Stena Line PTE Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 4101542/2017
- Decision date
- 29 August 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. L. Sanderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 15 August 2018 before Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan, the tribunal recorded that the parties had settled the claimant's claims on the terms of a confidential written agreement. The hearing was therefore postponed and the claims were stayed until 12 September 2018 to allow the settlement terms to be carried out, including the claimant's formal written withdrawal so that the claims would be dismissed.
The judgment states that the claims would be dismissed on receipt of the claimant's withdrawal, or by default if no application to lift the stay was received by 12 September 2018. It also records that the tribunal had not heard evidence and had made no award, and that the recruitment provisions did not apply. The written record does not determine the merits of the underlying claims or allocate any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim type inferred from the case context supplied with the file. The judgment records that the parties had settled the claimant's claims on confidential written terms; it does not identify the individual causes of action in the written record. | Settled | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim type inferred from the case context supplied with the file. The written judgment records a settlement of the claimant's claims and a stay pending formal withdrawal, but it does not give a merits decision on this claim. | Settled | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type inferred from the case context supplied with the file. The tribunal recorded settlement only and said it had not heard evidence or made an award. | 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.