Case 1805321/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Williams v K&S Auto’s Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805321/2021
- Decision date
- 25 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McAvoy Newns
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mrs L Anderson-Coe, Mr D Eales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Leeds on 24 May 2022 before Employment Judge McAvoy Newns with lay members Mrs L Anderson-Coe and Mr D Eales. The claimant did not attend. After considering Rules 2, 30A and 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal decided to proceed in the claimant's absence.
It dismissed the unfair dismissal claim under section 99 ERA 1996, stating that the claim was not well-founded and identifying the prescribed circumstances as those in sections 99(3)(c), (ca) and (d). It also dismissed the separate claim described as an unreasonable refusal to permit time off required by section 57A ERA 1996, again finding that claim not well-founded.
The tribunal further dismissed the pregnancy discrimination claim under section 18 Equality Act 2010 and the direct sex discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010. Both were held not well-founded. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under section 99 ERA 1996; dismissed as not well-founded. The tribunal said the prescribed circumstances were those in sections 99(3)(c), (ca) and (d). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment describes this as a claim that the respondent unreasonably refused to permit time off as required by section 57A ERA 1996; it does not label the claim using a standard taxonomy term. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Directly pleaded as pregnancy discrimination contrary to section 18 Equality Act 2010 and dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Directly pleaded as direct sex discrimination contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010 and dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rules 2, 30A and 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.99 ERA 1996
- s.99(3)(c), (ca) and (d) ERA 1996
- s.57A ERA 1996
- s.18 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
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.