Case 1305935/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Powell v Jaguar Land Rover Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1305935/2018
- Decision date
- 9 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
- Panel members
- Mrs Shenton, Mr White
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Powell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at Birmingham by CVP video hearing on 1-5 and 8-9 February 2021. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The unanimous judgment was that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and victimisation were not well founded. Each complaint was dismissed.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or within 14 days of the written decision being sent.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the direct disability discrimination complaint was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of discrimination arising from disability was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the victimisation complaint was not well founded and was dismissed. The text does not separately identify a protected characteristic for this complaint. | 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.