Case 1600782/2016 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Edwards v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2018

Case reference: 1600782/2016
Decision date: 20 September 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ward JUDGMENT
Venue: Cardiff

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Edwards

Respondent

The Secretary of State for Justice

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal recorded that the claim was dismissed except for the claim for associative discrimination. The written record does not set out the factual findings, reasoning, or any remedy.

Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment states that written reasons were not provided unless requested under Rule 62(3) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure 2013.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The judgment states that the claim is dismissed except for the claim for associative discrimination. It does not give reasons or further detail on the unfair dismissal claim.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	The judgment states that the claim is dismissed except for the claim for associative discrimination. The gov.uk listing identifies breach of contract, but the judgment does not give further particulars.	Dismissed	—	—
Disability discrimination	The judgment describes the surviving claim as associative discrimination. The gov.uk listing identifies disability discrimination; the written judgment does not set out reasons or remedy.	Upheld	Disability	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.