Case 1403743/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Francis v Hampshire Fire And Rescue Service — 2019
- Case reference
- 1403743/2018
- Decision date
- 15 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hargrove Members
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mr N Cross, Mr N Knight
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Francis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal at Southampton heard the case of Mr I Francis against Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service. The judgment records that the claimant was represented in person and the respondent was represented by Miss D Gilbert. The tribunal sat with Employment Judge Hargrove and members Mr N Cross and Mr N Knight.
In its unanimous judgment, the tribunal found that the claimant’s complaints of direct discrimination arising from disability and harassment, both of which were said to relate to disability, were not well founded. The tribunal also found that the claimant’s claim of constructive unfair dismissal was not well founded.
No monetary remedy is recorded in the written judgment. The decision note states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers to the claimant’s complaints of direct discrimination arising from disability; treated here as a disability discrimination claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states the harassment complaints all related to disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment refers to a claim of constructive unfair dismissal. | 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.