Case 6004179/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Falfus v Long Clawson Dairy Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6004179/2024
- Decision date
- 10 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Falfus
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short judgment issued by Employment Judge Ahmed sitting alone at Leicester on 5 December 2024. The written record states only that the Respondent’s application for costs was dismissed and its application for a deposit order was refused.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days of the sending of the written record. No substantive merits findings, liability findings, or monetary award are set out in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The only recorded decisions were procedural applications by the Respondent: the application for costs was dismissed and the application for a deposit order was refused. No substantive claim outcome is recorded in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The Respondent's application for a deposit order was refused. The outcome is recorded separately because the schema does not include a specific 'refused' outcome. | Other | — | — |
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.