Case 1400705/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Harrison v Launceston Leisure Centre Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400705/2024
- Decision date
- 19 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Dated
- Venue
- Bodmin
- Panel members
- Mr K Sleeth, Mrs P Skillin
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr David Harrison
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr David Harrison’s claims against Launceston Leisure Centre Limited and Mr Michael Davey were heard at Bodmin on 22 and 23 September 2025 before Employment Judge C H O’Rourke, with Mr K Sleeth and Mrs P Skillin sitting as members. The claimant appeared in person and Mr Davey represented the respondents.
The tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination claim. The written record states only that the claim failed and was dismissed, and the judgment does not set out the tribunal’s oral reasons in writing.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal therefore did not determine the claim on its merits.
The breach of contract claim in respect of pay in lieu of notice was noted as dismissed on withdrawal. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment, and the judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and would not be provided in writing unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claim of disability discrimination was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim of unfair dismissal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim for breach of contract in respect of pay in lieu of notice was recorded as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.