Case 1600482/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Quirolo Mr J Rees v JBT Aerotech UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600482/2020
- Decision date
- 14 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Havard Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Quirolo Mr J Rees
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt hearings on 11 November 2020 and 11 December 2020 before Employment Judge R Havard, the tribunal determined two separate unfair dismissal claims brought against JBT Aerotech UK Limited under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Mr A Quirolo's claim, case number 1600482/2020, was found well-founded and succeeded. The judgment records that the tribunal listed his case for a remote CVP remedy hearing with a half-day estimate on 16 April 2021.
Mr J Rees's separate claim, case number 1600902/2020, was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The written judgment states that the tribunal's reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found Mr A Quirolo's unfair dismissal claim under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded and directed that it be listed for a separate remote remedy hearing on 16 April 2021. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Mr J Rees's unfair dismissal claim under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.