Case 1600675/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Roberts v Go2People Group Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600675/2022
- Decision date
- 14 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Ms C Peel, Mrs L Owen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that, at all material times, Mr Roberts was an agency worker and was not employed by Go2People Group Ltd. On that basis, his unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims failed and were dismissed.
The Tribunal also found that Mr Roberts was a disabled person by reason of coronary heart disease and Wolf Parkinson White Syndrome at the material time. However, his claims of disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments all failed and were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found that at all material times the claimant was an agency worker and was not employed by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Tribunal found that at all material times the claimant was an agency worker and was not employed by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Tribunal found the claimant was a disabled person by reason of coronary heart disease and Wolf Parkinson White Syndrome at the material time, but this disability discrimination claim failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | Claim for discrimination arising from disability failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments failed and was dismissed. | 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.