Case 1301486/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Curtis v Jaguar Land Rover Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1301486/2022
- Decision date
- 15 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Meichen
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr E Stanley, Ms J Keene
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Curtis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claimant's claims against Jaguar Land Rover Ltd over multiple hearing days in May 2025, with deliberations in August 2025. The panel consisted of Employment Judge Meichen, Mr E Stanley and Ms J Keene.
The written judgment records that the claimant's claims failed and were dismissed. Full reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record states that further written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment states only that the claimant's claims fail and are dismissed; the disability discrimination classification comes from the gov.uk listing category supplied in the case context. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The written judgment states only that the claimant's claims fail and are dismissed; the race discrimination classification comes from the gov.uk listing category supplied in the case context. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment states only that the claimant's claims fail and are dismissed; the unlawful deduction from wages classification comes from the gov.uk listing category supplied in the case context. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.