Case 1806621/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Shaw v Direct Trade (Yorkshire) Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1806621/2022
- Decision date
- 3 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Shaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr M Shaw's claim against Direct Trade (Yorkshire) Ltd. It recorded that, because the claimant had less than two years' service, an unfair dismissal claim required an automatically unfair reason to be asserted, and none had been asserted.
The tribunal also noted that there was no complaint of disability discrimination. It added that, in any event, the way the claim was framed appeared to be that the respondent caused the claimant's impairment, rather than that he had been dismissed because of something arising from it. On that basis, no substantive claim was allowed to proceed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the claim. It said that for an unfair dismissal claim with less than two years' service, an automatically unfair reason must be asserted, and no applicable reason had been asserted. It also noted there was no complaint of disability discrimination and, in any event, the claim appeared to allege that the respondent caused the claimant's impairment rather than dismissing him arising out of it. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.