Case 1402887/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Wilkes v Guardian Industrial (UK) Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402887/2022
- Decision date
- 18 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Members
- Panel members
- Ms C Monaghan, Mr R Spry-Shute
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J Wilkes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the correct respondent to the claim was Guardian Industrial (UK) Ltd and dismissed the proceedings against Lakeside Construction Ltd. It upheld Mr Wilkes's complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, but dismissed his complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The tribunal upheld one victimisation complaint, namely the requirement that Mr Wilkes send daily site diaries for Elmcroft to prove his attendance on days when he had medical appointments. It dismissed the remaining victimisation complaints. It also dismissed the claim that his resignation amounted to a discriminatory dismissal under s.39(7) of the Equality Act 2010.
The holiday pay complaint was dismissed. On remedy, the tribunal found that when the proceedings were begun the respondent was in breach of its duty under s.4 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to provide a written statement of particulars of change. It found there were no exceptional circumstances making an award of two weeks' gross pay unjust or inequitable, but that it was not just and equitable to award four weeks' gross pay; any compensation would be increased by two weeks' pay capped at £571 per week. A three-hour remedy hearing was listed for 20 December 2023, so this judgment does not record a final total award.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability; found well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Specific complaint upheld: requiring the Claimant to send daily site diaries for Elmcroft to prove his attendance on days when he had medical appointments. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment says the remaining victimisation complaints were not well-founded; they are not individually itemised in the written record. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim that the Claimant’s resignation amounted to a discriminatory dismissal pursuant to s.39(7) of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay complaint dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.39(7) Equality Act 2010
- s.4 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.