Case 1305547/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Rhys Johns, counsel v Mrs Michele Peckham, solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 1305547/2019
- Decision date
- 27 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Coghlin QC
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr G Murray, Miss R Addison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Rhys Johns, counsel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in Birmingham before Employment Judge T Coghlin QC with Mr G Murray and Miss R Addison. In its unanimous judgment given orally on 27 October 2020, it recorded that XDP International Ltd, the second respondent, was removed by consent and the claims against that respondent were dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's substantive claims of direct age discrimination, wrongful dismissal, and unfair dismissal. The extract provided does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning, because it records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
No monetary remedy is recorded in the judgment extract, and none is indicated because the substantive claims failed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment refers to this as a claim of direct age discrimination and states that it failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the wrongful dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed. | 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.