Case 1307460/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Anderton v Scanlan’s (Plant Hire) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1307460/2024
- Decision date
- 25 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Walker Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Anderton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Mr M Anderton’s claim at Birmingham on 24 and 25 June 2025 before Employment Judge Walker. Mr Anderton was represented by Ms Morag Thomson, described as the claimant’s friend, and Scanlan’s (Plant Hire) Limited was represented by counsel, Mr Matthew Rudd.
The written judgment records only one substantive outcome: the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and was dismissed. The record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time, so no further factual or legal findings are set out in the written decision.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claim was not well founded and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; the written record does not set out reasons. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.