Case 2201539/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Claimant v Mr R Ardill and others — 2019

Case reference: 2201539/2019
Decision date: 28 October 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge JL Wade

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Respondent

Mr R Ardill and others

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The respondents did not file any ET3 grounds of resistance. The tribunal therefore determined the claim on the papers under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, without a hearing, after considering the ET1.

Employment Judge Wade found that the respondents had jointly and severally discriminated against the claimant because of his age. The judgment states that this was a breach of Equality Act 2010 sections 13 and 39(1). The tribunal also found that the respondents had harassed the claimant in breach of section 26.

No separate remedy figures are recorded in the judgment text provided. The decision is limited to the liability findings recorded in the rule 21 judgment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	Rule 21 judgment; the tribunal found the respondents jointly and severally discriminated against the claimant because of age under Equality Act 2010 s.13 and s.39(1).	Upheld	Age	—
Harassment	Rule 21 judgment; the tribunal found the respondents jointly and severally harassed the claimant in breach of Equality Act 2010 s.26.	Upheld	Age	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.