Case 1806613/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Drury v Everard Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806613/2020
- Decision date
- 6 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Drury
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge JM Wade in Leeds on 6 April 2021. The claimant, Mr N Drury, appeared in person and the respondent, Everard Group Limited, was represented by Mr Dale. The hearing was conducted in hybrid form, with the claimant and the judge in person and respondent's counsel by videolink, as an adjustment to address the claimant's dyslexia.
The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The tribunal recorded that he did not have the required two years' service and had not identified an alleged reason for dismissal that would bring the claim within an exception to the service requirement.
The claimant's Equality Act complaint that his dismissal was disability discrimination was also struck out. The tribunal held that there were no reasonable prospects of him establishing that dyslexia, or something arising from it, was an influence on, or reason for, his dismissal. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not have the required two years' service and had not identified an alleged reason for dismissal that would give rise to an exception. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out because the tribunal found there were no reasonable prospects of the claimant establishing that dyslexia, or something arising from it, was an influence on or reason for the dismissal. | Struck out | 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.