Case 1404745/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. M. Birkett v Integral UK Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404745/2020
- Decision date
- 7 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Ms W. Morgan, Ms M. Humphries
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. M. Birkett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan and lay members Ms W. Morgan and Ms M. Humphries, gave a unanimous judgment after a hearing on 4 to 6 April 2022. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would follow because no request was made.
On the merits, the tribunal found that Mr Birkett was fairly dismissed by Integral UK Ltd on 15 July 2020 by reason of redundancy. His claim of unfair dismissal was therefore not well-founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal also rejected his claims of direct race discrimination and direct age discrimination in relation to his dismissal. Both discrimination claims were found not well-founded and were dismissed. The written record does not set out any monetary award, and none is recorded in the decision extract.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was fairly dismissed by the respondent on 15 July 2020 by reason of redundancy. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant's direct race discrimination claim in relation to his dismissal was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The claimant's direct age discrimination claim in relation to his dismissal was found not well-founded and dismissed. | 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.