Case 1601896/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D. Birtwistle v JH Willis Ltd HELD BY: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601896/2019
- Decision date
- 15 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Ms. J. Kiely, Ms B. Roberts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D. Birtwistle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously found that Mr D. Birtwistle was constructively dismissed by JH Willis Ltd on 9 September 2019 and that the dismissal was unfair. That finding meant the claimant's unfair dismissal claim succeeded.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant's discrimination claims, brought because of the protected characteristics of age and/or disability, failed and were dismissed. The written record does not set out separate reasoning for age and disability, only that the discrimination case did not succeed.
No remedy was determined in the judgment. The tribunal recorded that settlement terms had been agreed and stayed the claimant's application for a remedy until 22 January 2021. If neither party applied for a remedy hearing by 4 pm on that date, the application for an award was to be dismissed on deemed withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was constructively dismissed on 9 September 2019 and that the dismissal was unfair. | Upheld | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's discrimination claims because of age and/or disability failed and were dismissed; it does not separate the reasoning by characteristic. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's discrimination claims because of age and/or disability failed and were dismissed; it does not separate the reasoning by characteristic. | 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.