Case 6002458/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Proctor v Serious Waste Management Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002458/2024
- Decision date
- 5 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
- Venue
- Nottingham Tribunal Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Proctor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge S Shore dismissed the claimant's claim of unfair dismissal against Serious Waste Management Limited. The Tribunal found the claim was weak with little reasonable prospect of success, and that an offer of £10,000 made by the respondent on 27 March 2025 was reasonable. The judge concluded that the claimant had been unreasonable in continuing the claim after that offer.
A costs order was made under Rule 74(2)(a) requiring the claimant to pay the respondent £12,000 in costs (the amount of counsel's fees) within 28 days. The respondent had sought £20,000. The claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration of the costs award was rejected as having no reasonable prospect of success.
PDF text was truncated; the substantive findings on misconduct underlying the dismissal were partially omitted.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim of unfair dismissal failed. Respondent awarded £12,000 in costs against the claimant; per schema's nonneg-money constraint, costs against claimant are not recorded as a remedy_amount. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 74(2)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 70 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.