Case 1601178/2017 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr D Buttle (2) Mr L Moore (3) Mr R Jones v AstraZeneca UK Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1601178/2017
- Decision date
- 3 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr D Buttle (2) Mr L Moore (3) Mr R Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Cardiff from 4 to 12 November 2019 before Employment Judge P Britton sitting alone. The claimants were Mr D Buttle, Mr L Moore and Mr R Jones, and the respondent was Astrazeneca UK Ltd.
The written judgment records that, in all cases, the claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract were dismissed. It does not set out separate written reasons, stating that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided on request under Rule 62(3) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
No monetary award is recorded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to state within 21 days whether it wished to make a costs application, with reasons if so, and reserved consideration of publication of reasons depending on whether costs remained on the agenda.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment records dismissal of the unfair dismissal claims; reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The written judgment records dismissal of the breach of contract claims; reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included. | 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.