Case 1301205/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Jones v West Midlands Fire Service — 2024
- Case reference
- 1301205/2022
- Decision date
- 14 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr McIntosh, Mr Reeves
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in Birmingham on 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 October 2024 before Employment Judge Flood with Mr McIntosh and Mr Reeves. Mr R Jones represented himself and West Midlands Fire Service was represented by counsel.
In its unanimous judgment, the tribunal held that Mr Jones's complaint of direct age discrimination, brought under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, was not well founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal also held that Mr Jones's constructive unfair dismissal complaint, brought under sections 94, 95 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, was not well founded and was dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed as not well founded under s 13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Dismissed as not well founded under sections 94, 95 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s 13 Equality Act 2010
- ss 94, 95 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.