Case 1304698/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ian Evison v Bridge Aluminium Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304698/2023
- Decision date
- 10 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fitzgerald
- Venue
- Midland West
- Panel members
- Ms J Beards, Mr P Wilkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ian Evison
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Midland West on 9 and 10 May 2024 before Employment Judge Fitzgerald with Ms J Beards and Mr P Wilkinson, dismissed all of the Claimant’s claims against Bridge Aluminium Limited. The judgment records claims for failure to inform and consult under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, automatic unfair dismissal, constructive dismissal, and wrongful dismissal.
Each claim failed. The written record states that the claim of failure to inform and consult under TUPE failed, the automatic unfair dismissal claim failed, the constructive dismissal claim failed, and the wrongful dismissal claim failed. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claims in their entirety.
The written judgment contains only the dispositive outcome and does not set out detailed reasons or a monetary award. It also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note appended to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Claim for failure to inform and consult under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim pleaded as automatic unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | 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.