Case 2200504/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. K. Couson v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Ltd. Hearing: Final Merits Hearing — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200504/2023
- Decision date
- 12 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion
- Panel members
- Mr. Carroll, Ms. Marsters
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. K. Couson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final merits hearing took place on 11-12 October 2023 before Employment Judge Tinnion with Members Mr. Carroll and Ms. Marsters. The Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by counsel. The Claimant applied under Rule 29 for orders requiring the Respondent to seek CCTV footage from third parties and for the final merits hearing to be adjourned pending those responses. That application was refused.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 37(1)(e) after the Claimant did not prepare and serve a witness statement, meaning a fair hearing was no longer possible. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim under ss.13 and 39(2)(c)-(d) Equality Act 2010. Struck out under Rule 37(1)(e) for the same reason as the unfair dismissal claim. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 29
- Rule 37(1)(c)
- Rule 37(1)(e)
- ss.94-98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ss.13 and 39(2)(c)-(d) 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.
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.