Case 1601343/2019 · Employment Tribunal
MRS TUCKER-DIXON FOR THE v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601343/2019
- Decision date
- 5 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Mrs M Walters, Mr C Stephenson
Parties
1 namedClaimant
MRS TUCKER-DIXON FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Cardiff on 2 to 4 March 2020 before Employment Judge S Povey, Mrs M Walters and Mr C Stephenson. It recorded that the claimant was Tyrone Tucker-Dixon and the respondent was Openreach Limited. The parties were represented by Mrs Tucker-Dixon for the claimant and Mr Caiden of counsel for the respondent.
In its unanimous judgment the tribunal found that the claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unlawful discrimination on the grounds of race were not made out. Each of those claims was dismissed. The short extract provided does not set out detailed reasons, findings of fact, or any legal test expressly applied.
The tribunal also ordered the claimant to pay the respondent £2,000 towards the respondent's legal costs. No claimant remedy award was recorded in the judgment extract.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.