Case 1600608/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Peel v Office for National Statistics — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600608/2022
- Decision date
- 26 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
- Venue
- By video
- Panel members
- Mrs J Beard, Mr D Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Peel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Mr A Peel's claims against the Office for National Statistics by video on 23, 24 and 25 January 2023. The panel was Employment Judge S Moore with non-legal members Mrs J Beard and Mr D Ryan.
The judgment records that the claimant's claim for unfair dismissal contrary to s94 Employment Rights Act 1996 did not succeed and was dismissed. It also records that the claimant's claim that the respondent failed to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments under ss20/21 Equality Act 2010 did not succeed and was dismissed.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or within 14 days of the written record being sent. No remedy or monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim contrary to s94 Employment Rights Act 1996 did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records the Equality Act 2010 reasonable adjustments claim under ss20/21; no written reasons are included in the judgment text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ss20/21 Equality Act 2010
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.