Case 1601329/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Davies v Openreach Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1601329/2022
- Decision date
- 10 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Havard
- Venue
- Cardiff via CVP
- Panel members
- Ms M Humphries, Mr A Fryer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at Cardiff via CVP on 21, 22 and 23 August 2024 before Employment Judge R Havard, Ms M Humphries and Mr A Fryer. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by in-house counsel.
The written judgment records that the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, and harassment were not well-founded and were dismissed. The reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not set out the Tribunal's factual findings or detailed reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment identifies this as a claim of discrimination arising from disability and states that it was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the harassment claim was not well-founded and dismissed. The operative text does not separately state the protected characteristic for harassment, but the case is listed as disability discrimination and the other discrimination claim is disability-related. | 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.