Case 1403204/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Matthews v Wrings Transport Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1403204/2024
- Decision date
- 6 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leverton
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Matthews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Bristol on 5 and 6 March 2026 before Employment Judge Leverton sitting alone. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The judgment records that the complaints of unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures, unfair dismissal for asserting a statutory right, and direct age discrimination were not well-founded and were dismissed. The text provided states that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states the complaint was unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures and that it was not well-founded and dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the text provided. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the complaint was unfair dismissal for asserting a statutory right and that it was not well-founded and dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the text provided. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states the direct age discrimination complaint was not well-founded and dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the text provided. | 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.