Case 1305629/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1305629/2022
- Decision date
- 16 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 16 June 2023 in Birmingham, Employment Judge Wedderspoon recorded that the claimant's claims against MacFarlane Group UK Limited were dismissed. The written record does not set out separate findings for each claim or any monetary award.
The note to the judgment states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record. The written judgment therefore records the outcome only, rather than a fuller explanation of the tribunal's reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment states only that the claimant's claims were dismissed. The claim type is taken from the official GOV.UK case listing; the written record itself gives no separate claim-by-claim reasoning. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The written judgment states only that the claimant's claims were dismissed. The claim type is taken from the official GOV.UK case listing; the written record itself gives no separate claim-by-claim reasoning. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment states only that the claimant's claims were dismissed. The claim type is taken from the official GOV.UK case listing; the written record itself gives no separate claim-by-claim reasoning. | 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.