Case 2300453/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Franklin Davis v B&Q Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300453/2021
- Decision date
- 15 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clarke
- Venue
- London South Tribunal
- Panel members
- Ms C Bonner, Mr K Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Franklin Davis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the claims at London South Tribunal between 12 June 2023 and 15 June 2023, before Employment Judge Clarke with Ms C Bonner and Mr K Murphy. The Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by counsel.
In its reserved judgment on liability, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint of unfair dismissal, finding that it was not well-founded and that the Claimant was not unfairly dismissed by the Respondent.
The Tribunal also dismissed the complaints of direct age discrimination and victimisation. It found that the Claimant was not discriminated against because of age and was not victimised as a result of pursuing a previous Employment Tribunal claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and that the Claimant was not unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct age discrimination was not well-founded and that the Claimant was not discriminated against because of his age. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the complaint of victimisation was not well-founded and that the Claimant was not victimised as a result of pursuing a previous Employment Tribunal claim. | 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.
- 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.