Case 1404978/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr P Neal, Lay representative For the v Mr R Bartlett, Director — 2021

Case reference: 1404978/2018
Decision date: 7 July 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Balogun Date
Panel members: Mr G Mann, Mrs H Carter

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr P Neal, Lay representative For the

Respondent

Mr R Bartlett, Director

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal at London South, sitting by CVP before Employment Judge Balogun with Mr G Mann and Mrs H Carter, found that Mr J Dignam’s constructive unfair dismissal claim succeeded. It also upheld his claims of direct disability discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and discrimination arising in consequence of disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal further held that the wrongful dismissal claim succeeded. It dismissed all other claims.

No final monetary award was recorded in this liability judgment because the matter was listed for a one-day remedy hearing on 29 November 2021.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	The tribunal held that the constructive unfair dismissal claim succeeded.	Upheld	—	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal held that direct disability discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 succeeded.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal held that discrimination arising in consequence of disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 succeeded.	Upheld	Disability	—
Wrongful dismissal	The wrongful dismissal claim succeeded.	Upheld	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.