Case 1400743/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jason Rodber v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400743/2022
- Decision date
- 6 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horder Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jason Rodber
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent's name to Network Rail Infrastructure Limited and refused the claimant's application to amend his claim to add a disability discrimination claim under the Equality Act.
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal held that an 80% Polkey reduction would be applied to compensatory losses arising from 11 April 2022, reflecting the date on which the claimant was likely to have been dismissed had the respondent adopted a fair procedure. The tribunal also decided there would be no increase in the compensatory award under section 207A of TULRCA.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim for unfair dismissal succeeds. Remedy figures are not provided in the judgment text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend his claim to add a disability discrimination claim under the Equality Act; the discrimination claim was not determined on its merits in the supplied judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd 1988 ICR 142
- section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.