Case 1401107/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sam Bell v Chiltern Maritime Limited (1st Respondent) Maritime Educational Foundation Limited (2nd Respondent) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401107/2022
- Decision date
- 29 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hay Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Sam Bell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningA public preliminary hearing was held at Southampton on 13 June 2023 before Employment Judge Hay, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondents represented by Mr G Anderson and Dr M Ahmad. The hearing was held to determine questions of employment status and disability.
Following evidence and submissions, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and age discrimination. The written record states only the dismissals and does not set out any separate monetary award or other remedy.
The record also states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed following evidence and submissions at a public preliminary hearing to determine employment status and disability. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed following evidence and submissions at a public preliminary hearing to determine employment status and disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed following evidence and submissions at a public preliminary hearing to determine employment status and disability. | Dismissed | Age | — |
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.