Case 1302381/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Jack Duffy counsel For the v Mr Matthew Curtis — 2021

Case reference: 1302381/2019
Decision date: 7 May 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Dean Members
Venue: Birmingham
Panel members: Mrs R Pelter, Mr D Falconbridge

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Jack Duffy counsel For the

Respondent

Mr Matthew Curtis

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At Birmingham by CVP on 4-7 May 2021, Employment Judge Dean sat with lay members Mrs R Pelter and Mr D Falconbridge. The tribunal held that Mr J Kennett was not dismissed constructively, unfairly or at all by the First Respondent. The unfair dismissal and constructive dismissal complaints were therefore dismissed.

The tribunal also rejected Mr Kennett’s complaints against the First and Second Respondents of unlawful discrimination because of disability. Those complaints were pleaded as indirect discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.19, 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. All complaints were dismissed and no monetary award was made.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	The tribunal held that the claimant was not dismissed constructively by the First Respondent.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that the claimant was not dismissed unfairly or at all by the First Respondent.	Dismissed	—	—
Disability discrimination	Complaints against the First and Second Respondents of unlawful disability discrimination, pleaded as indirect discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments in breach of ss.19, 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010, did not succeed.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.