Case 1600541/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Williams v Blue Arrow Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600541/2023
- Decision date
- 19 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing held by CVP at Wrexham on 18 January 2024, the Tribunal considered the Claimant's claims against Blue Arrow Ltd. The Claimant represented himself and the Respondent was represented by counsel.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent had not dismissed the Claimant from employment that commenced on 24 May 2020. It concluded that, because the Claimant's employment had not been terminated, his claims were dismissed.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment records that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found that the Respondent had not dismissed the Claimant and that his employment had not been terminated. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not set out separate reasoning for this claim; it states that, because the Claimant's employment had not been terminated, his claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not set out separate reasoning for this claim; it states that, because the Claimant's employment had not been terminated, his claims were dismissed. | 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.