Case 1602149/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Jones v Openreach Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602149/2023
- Decision date
- 24 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Ms P Palmer, Ms Y Neves
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously dismissed the Claimant's disability discrimination claim. The judgment records that the claim was that the Respondent failed in a duty to make a reasonable adjustment, and that the claim failed.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent dismissed the Claimant unfairly on 27 July 2023, so the unfair dismissal claim was well-founded and succeeded. It decided that the Basic Award should be reduced by 50% because of the Claimant's conduct before notice of dismissal.
For the Compensatory Award, the Tribunal awarded loss of statutory rights and income loss for six months from dismissal, then reduced the award by 50% for the Claimant's actions and contribution to dismissal. It ordered a further 75% reduction to reflect the substantial risk that the Claimant faced of being fairly dismissed at that time. The Tribunal directed the parties to agree or submit calculations because the necessary financial information was not available at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment identifies the disability discrimination claim as a failure to make a reasonable adjustment, which failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was found well-founded and succeeded, but the judgment did not state a monetary award because the parties lacked the financial information needed to calculate the basic and compensatory awards. | Upheld | — | — |
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.