Case 1406262/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Forrester Hayes v Scania (Great Britain) Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1406262/2023
- Decision date
- 4 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Forrester Hayes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Bristol before Employment Judge Ferguson, heard the case on 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18 March 2025. It dismissed every complaint before it: unfair dismissal, breach of contract in respect of notice pay, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment related to disability.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and the written decision records only the dismissals of the claims.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of unfair dismissal dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for damages for breach of contract (notice pay) dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of direct disability discrimination dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to disability dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.