Case 2213469/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G. Smith v London Underground Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2213469/2023
- Decision date
- 20 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leonard-Johnston Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G. Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London Central, Employment Judge Leonard-Johnston heard Mr G. Smith's claims against London Underground Ltd on 6-8 March 2024. The written judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and was dismissed. It also records that the claim described as unlawful deduction of page/holiday pay was dismissed.
The decision text does not set out written reasons for those outcomes. Its note states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The written record therefore contains no further findings on liability, and it records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment records dismissal of the claim described as 'unlawful deduction of page/holiday pay'; the extracted text appears to contain an OCR error in that phrase. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.