Case 1601297/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Case v Tai Tarian — 2019
- Case reference
- 1601297/2018
- Decision date
- 2 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge RL Brace
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Case
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the case was heard at Cardiff on 27, 28, 29 and 30 August 2019 before Employment Judge RL Brace. The written record states that the parties were represented by counsel and that oral reasons were given at the hearing.
The only claim identified in the judgment record is unfair dismissal. The tribunal stated that the claim was not well founded and dismissed it. No further factual findings or legal reasoning are set out in the written record provided.
The judgment also notes that written reasons were not provided unless requested under Rule 62(3) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment record states that the claim of unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed. The document says reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not provided. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.