Case 1803865/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Shaw v Bel-Marking Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803865/2021
- Decision date
- 23 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller
- Panel members
- Mr A Ali, Mr J Rhodes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Shaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Hull by video on 21, 22 and 23 November 2022 before Employment Judge Miller, sitting with lay members Mr A Ali and Mr J Rhodes. The claimant, Mr A Shaw, brought claims against Bel-Marking Ltd for unfair dismissal, detriment because of a protected disclosure, direct discrimination because of disability, and unlawful deduction from wages.
The tribunal dismissed each claim. It found that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded, the protected disclosure detriment claim was unsuccessful, the disability discrimination claim was unsuccessful, and the unlawful deduction from wages claim was unsuccessful.
No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and no award is made on any of the claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claimant’s detriment claim because he made a protected disclosure was unsuccessful and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the direct discrimination claim because of disability was unsuccessful and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the unlawful deduction from wages claim was unsuccessful 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.