Case 1311098/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Mr K Crawford (Operations Director) Interpreter: Mr M Adam - Polish — 2023
- Case reference
- 1311098/2020
- Decision date
- 4 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell Dated
- Panel members
- Mr P Simpson, Mr P Wilkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously dismissed all claims. It found that the claimant was not, at any time material to the claim, a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, so the disability discrimination claim failed. It also found no contravention of section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to the claimant's race and age discrimination complaints, and those claims were dismissed.
The tribunal further found that the claimant did not make any protected disclosures, so the protected disclosure detriment claim was not well-founded. It also found that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent, which meant the unfair dismissal claim failed and the wrongful dismissal claim for unpaid notice pay was also dismissed.
The remaining monetary claims were dismissed as not well-founded: the claim for unpaid wages and the claim for unpaid holiday pay. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not at any material time a disabled person as defined by the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the respondent did not act towards the claimant in contravention of section 39 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found the respondent did not act towards the claimant in contravention of section 39 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found the claimant did not make any protected disclosures and that the protected disclosure detriment claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant's claim for unpaid wages was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant's claim for unpaid holiday pay was found not well-founded. |
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.