Case 1806657/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Aylmer v Premier Farnell UK Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1806657/2021
- Decision date
- 13 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Aylmer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the Claimant's complaint of disability discrimination was dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant. No merits finding was made on that complaint; the disposal reflects the withdrawal rather than an adjudication on liability.
The tribunal also recorded that the complaint of harassment in relation to race was automatically struck out because the total deposit due on 1 June 2022 was not paid. The judgment notes that, before that date, the Claimant had confirmed that he was not pursuing that particular claim.
The remaining claims were left to proceed to a hearing at a future date to be notified after the preliminary hearing on 12 July 2022, which was converted from a public hearing to a private case management hearing. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of disability discrimination was dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment in relation to race was automatically struck out because the total deposit due on 1 June 2022 was not paid; the Claimant had confirmed before that date that he was not pursuing the claim. | Struck out | Race | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.