Case 1802380/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Adleigh v G-Tuft Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1802380/2022
- Decision date
- 10 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- L Fawcett, DW Fields
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Leeds on 9 and 10 January 2023 before Employment Judge Lancaster, with members L Fawcett and DW Fields. The claimant, Mr V Adleigh, appeared in person and the respondent, G-Tuft Limited, was represented by counsel. The written judgment records a single outcome: "The claims are dismissed."
The public record does not give separate reasons for the unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, or breach of contract claims. It also does not record any remedy or monetary award. The judgment notes that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claims were dismissed, but it does not set out separate findings for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the claims were dismissed, but it does not set out separate findings for this claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claims were dismissed, but it does not set out separate findings for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.