Case 1304184/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Allsop, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1304184/2018
- Decision date
- 27 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lloyd MEMBERS
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr D McIntosh, Mrs M O’Rourke
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr T Allsop, Solicitor For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case in Birmingham over 24 to 27 February 2020 before Employment Judge Lloyd sitting with lay members Mr D McIntosh and Mrs M O’Rourke. Its unanimous judgment was that the claimant’s claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination were not proven, and the claims were dismissed in their entirety.
The judgment also records a limitation point in relation to the discrimination complaint said to have arisen on 10 May 2018. On the tribunal’s analysis, it would have been just and equitable to extend the time limit by one day so that that claim could proceed, but that did not alter the overall outcome because the discrimination claim itself was not proven.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim dismissed in the tribunal's unanimous judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal recorded that, if a limitation issue arose in relation to the discrimination contended on 10 May 2018, it would be just and equitable to extend time by one day so the claim could proceed; the discrimination claim was nevertheless not proven and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.