Case 1402439/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Mackett v Capstick Brothers Limited T/A Fireaway Pizza — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402439/2022
- Decision date
- 12 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Mr H Launder, Ms R Clarke
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Mackett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Bristol, sitting on 2 and 3 May 2023 before Employment Judge J Bax with Mr H Launder and Ms R Clarke, dismissed the claims of direct associative disability discrimination and consequential discriminatory constructive dismissal brought by Mr B Mackett against Capstick Brothers Limited T/A Fireaway Pizza. The judgment does not set out written reasons, noting that reasons were given orally at the hearing and would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal upheld the claims that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant for annual leave and for accrued but untaken holiday. It ordered the respondent to pay £355.90 gross in respect of those claims. The judgment records that this sum had already been transferred to the claimant's bank account, so no further payment was due.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Described in the judgment as a claim of direct associative disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the consequent discriminatory constructive dismissal claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claims for unpaid annual leave and accrued but untaken holiday well founded and ordered payment of £355.90 gross, noting the sum had already been transferred to the claimant's bank account. | Upheld | — | £356 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £356
- across all upheld claims
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.