Mr D Hughes v Alten Ltd — 2025

Case reference: 1306316/2023
Decision date: 1 April 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Edmonds
Venue: Birmingham
Panel members: Mr D Faulconbridge, Miss S Fritz

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr D Hughes

Respondent

Alten Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The case was heard at Birmingham on 31 March and 1 April 2025 before Employment Judge Edmonds, with Mr D Faulconbridge and Miss S Fritz as the lay members. The written judgment records that the complaint of wrongful dismissal / breach of contract was not well-founded and dismissed, and it records the same outcome for direct age discrimination, direct disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The written record does not set out the tribunal's reasons in detail. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Wrongful dismissal	Judgment described this as wrongful dismissal / breach of contract.	Dismissed	—	—
Age discrimination	Direct age discrimination.	Dismissed	Age	—
Disability discrimination	Direct disability discrimination.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Failure to make reasonable adjustments.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.