Case 1601634/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Hudson v MPS Housing Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601634/2021
- Decision date
- 5 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Ms L Owen, Ms K Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Hudson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously found that Mr G Hudson was constructively unfairly dismissed by MPS Housing Ltd on 16 June 2021, so his unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The written record also states that, at all material times, he was a disabled person and that the respondent had knowledge of his disability.
The claimant's disability discrimination claims were dismissed. The judgment records failed claims for discrimination arising from disability, harassment, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. No written reasons were provided because the reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The claimant's breach of contract claim, relating to utility bills and expenses, was dismissed. His claim for a redundancy payment was dismissed upon withdrawal. The written record does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed by the respondent on 16 June 2021. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim for discrimination arising from disability; dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim listed by the tribunal as part of the failed disability discrimination claims; dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim; dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim that the respondent breached the contract with regard to payment of utility bills and expenses; dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment; dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.