Case 6020420/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Chris Hankey v Standish Pub Company Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020420/2024
- Decision date
- 7 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cline
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Chris Hankey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a private CVP hearing on 16 July 2025 before Employment Judge Cline sitting alone, the claimant did not attend and was not represented. The respondent was represented by Mr Andrew McKenna, its manager. The tribunal did not determine the merits of the whistleblowing detriment, unpaid wages, or unpaid sick pay complaints because those claims were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The claimant also withdrew the unpaid holiday claim on the basis that the respondent accepted that it remained outstanding. The tribunal recorded that it was not in the interests of justice to dismiss that claim. The judgment records no monetary award and gives no written reasons beyond the oral decision given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unpaid wages was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unpaid sick pay was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant withdrew the unpaid holiday claim after the respondent accepted that holiday pay remained outstanding; the tribunal said it was not in the interests of justice to dismiss that claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.