Case 1803050/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Lewis v London North Eastern Railway Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1803050/2022
- Decision date
- 21 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Ms. Fleming, Mr. Harker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Lewis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal sat at Leeds on 13, 14, 15 and 16 February 2023 before Employment Judge Shepherd with members Ms. Fleming and Mr. Harker. Mr S Lewis appeared in person and London North Eastern Railway Limited was represented by Mr Rudd, counsel.
The unanimous judgment was that the claim of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. The claim of sexual orientation discrimination was also not well-founded and was dismissed.
The Tribunal further dismissed the claims of breach of contract and holiday pay as not well-founded. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time limit. No remedy or monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The judgment states that the sexual orientation discrimination claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the breach of contract claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the holiday pay claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | 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.