Case 1302926/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Walker, Counsel For the v Mrs J Cox, Solicitor — 2024
- Case reference
- 1302926/2022
- Decision date
- 22 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes
- Panel members
- Mr K Palmer, Mrs BH Astill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Walker, Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case, heard at Birmingham before Employment Judge Hughes with members Mr K Palmer and Mrs BH Astill, concerned claims by Mr B Morgan against Wieland Metals Birmingham Ltd. The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and both direct discrimination complaints because of religion and belief, one relating to not being offered office duties and the other relating to dismissal.
The tribunal also dismissed the indirect discrimination complaint because of religion and belief. In addition, it recorded that this complaint had been presented out of time, was not part of a continuing course of conduct, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it in any event.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination because of religion and belief in respect of not being offered office duties; found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination because of religion and belief in respect of dismissal; found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Indirect discrimination because of religion and belief; the tribunal also recorded that the complaint was out of time, was not part of a continuing course of conduct, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction in any event. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
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.