Case 1402065/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Meldrum v F C Douch & Son (Funerals) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402065/2021
- Decision date
- 9 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley
- Panel members
- Mrs Y Ramsaran, Mr I Ley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Meldrum
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Bristol by video on 11 and 12 April 2021, heard the case before Employment Judge Midgley with Mrs Y Ramsaran and Mr I Ley as lay members. The claimant was represented by Mr J Howison and the respondent by Mr B Bansal.
The written judgment records that the unanimous decision of the tribunal was that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed. The written record supplied does not set out the tribunal's factual findings or the individual reasons for dismissal, and it notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment. The record also states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment record does not set out the underlying factual or legal basis of the claim in the written text supplied. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The written record refers to 'the claimant's claims' in the plural, but the supplied text does not identify this claim separately. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.