Case 1802186/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Fox v Watermark Plumbing Supplies Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1802186/2022
- Decision date
- 25 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr D Fields, Mr G Harker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Fox
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Leeds before Employment Judge Deeley with Mr D Fields and Mr G Harker as members. In its liability judgment, it upheld the claimant’s claim of constructive unfair dismissal and upheld his claim of discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal also dismissed the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of direct disability discrimination was dismissed upon withdrawal with the consent of the parties. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Found as constructive unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments failed. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.