Case 1401852/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Leonhardt of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401852/2022
- Decision date
- 14 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Ms E Smillie, Mr M Lewis
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr A Leonhardt of Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Exeter on 3 July 2023 before Employment Judge N J Roper, with Ms E Smillie and Mr M Lewis as members. The parties were represented by counsel. The judgment was expressly recorded as a judgment by consent, stating that terms of settlement had been agreed between the parties.
The tribunal adjourned the case to allow those settlement terms to be implemented. It did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal or disability discrimination claims, and it did not record any monetary award.
The judgment further provided that if neither party applied to relist the matter before 31 July 2023, the case would stand dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant as at that date.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment by consent. The tribunal adjourned the case to allow agreed settlement terms to be implemented and stated that, if neither party applied to relist the matter before 31 July 2023, the case would stand dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant as at that date. No merits determination or monetary award was recorded in the judgment. | Settled | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Judgment by consent. The tribunal adjourned the case to allow agreed settlement terms to be implemented and stated that, if neither party applied to relist the matter before 31 July 2023, the case would stand dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant as at that date. No merits determination or monetary award was recorded in the judgment. | Settled | Disability | — |
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.