Case 1307563/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M White v The Governing Body of the Trinity Catholic School — 2026
- Case reference
- 1307563/2019
- Decision date
- 26 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M White
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr White's complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed upon withdrawal. He accepted that he had been employed by the respondent for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal recorded that this did not affect his ability to pursue his dismissal as an act of discrimination.
Mr White also accepted that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear his remaining complaints: a claim under s.15 Equality Act 2010 alleging discrimination arising from disability, and a claim described as a failure to make reasonable adjustments under s.20-22 Equality Act 2010 based on age. Those complaints were dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant accepted he had less than two years' service and was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant accepted the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear his complaint under s.15 (discrimination arising from disability). | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | The claimant accepted the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear his complaint said to be a failure to make reasonable adjustments under s.20-22, based on age. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20-22 Equality Act 2010
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.