Case 1306129/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Beckford v Woodbridge Garage Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 1306129/2024
- Decision date
- 10 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Beckford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the complaint that the claimant had been subjected to detriment on the ground that he was a part-time worker, finding that it was not well-founded.
The tribunal also dismissed the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under section 105 Employment Rights Act 1996, finding that it was not well-founded. The published judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | The judgment states that the complaint of detriment on the ground that the claimant was a part-time worker was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the published record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under section 105 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the published record. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 105 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.