Case 1600642/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Morgan-Lee v Mr K Rice t/a West Shore Beach Café — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600642/2023
- Decision date
- 7 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Ms C Peel, Mr B Roberts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Morgan-Lee
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously found that Mr G Morgan-Lee was not a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time, which it identified as November 2022 to December 2022. On that basis, his disability discrimination claims failed and were dismissed.
The Tribunal also found that Mr Morgan-Lee resigned from his employment by notice given on 4 November 2022. The resignation was agreed to be effective on 6 November 2022, but was effected by him on 5 November 2022. The Tribunal therefore held that he was not dismissed by Mr K Rice t/a West Shore Beach Café, and the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
The Tribunal recorded that the Respondent did not issue written employment particulars, but said that as no relevant claim succeeded it was not able to make any award in relation to that matter. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal found that the Claimant was not a disabled person, as defined by s.6 Equality Act 2010, at the material time (November 2022 to December 2022), so the disability discrimination claims failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found that the Claimant resigned by notice given on 4 November 2022, agreed to be effective on 6 November 2022 but effected by him on 5 November 2022, and therefore was not dismissed by the Respondent. | 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.