Case 2201177/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Joseph England (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201177/2019
- Decision date
- 5 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms E Ali, Ms S Pendle
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Joseph England (counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London Central before Employment Judge Gordon with Ms E Ali and Ms S Pendle, heard the case on 2 to 5 December 2019 and gave its decision on 5 December 2019. The Claimant was represented by Joseph England and the Respondent by Thomas Cordrey.
The tribunal dismissed the discrimination complaint, finding that the Respondent did not discriminate against the Claimant directly or indirectly by dismissing him. The judgment does not set out written reasons, because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The unfair dismissal complaint was also rejected. The tribunal stated that the complaint was not well-founded and that the Claimant was fairly dismissed. The separate wrongful dismissal claim failed as well.
The Respondent's counterclaim succeeded, and the Claimant was ordered to pay £317.81 to the Respondent. No other monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the Respondent did not discriminate against the Claimant directly or indirectly by dismissing him. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and that the Claimant was fairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the wrongful dismissal claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The Respondent's counterclaim succeeded and the Claimant was ordered to pay £317.81. | Upheld | — | £318 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £318
- across all upheld claims
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.