Case 2300458/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Rolles (1) Mr D Ludwig (2) Mr D Newcomb (3) Mr M MacPherson (4) v Transport for London — 2025
- Case reference
- 2300458/2023
- Decision date
- 22 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith
- Panel members
- Miss H Bharadia, Mrs N Beeston
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Rolles (1) Mr D Ludwig (2) Mr D Newcomb (3) Mr M MacPherson (4)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard claims brought by four claimants against Transport for London at Croydon by CVP between 31 March and 11 April 2025. The panel was Employment Judge Leith, Miss H Bharadia and Mrs N Beeston.
The written judgment records that the First and Fourth Claimants' complaints of automatically unfair dismissal failed and were dismissed. It also records that each Claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed, and that the Third and Fourth Claimants' complaints of wrongful dismissal failed and were dismissed.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment does not set out the Tribunal's factual findings, legal reasoning, or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The written judgment records complaints of automatically unfair dismissal by the First and Fourth Claimants, which failed and were dismissed. The gov.uk listing category is Trade Union Membership, but the written judgment does not set out the pleaded basis or reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment records that the complaints of unfair dismissal brought by each of the Claimants failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The written judgment records that the complaints of wrongful dismissal brought by the Third and Fourth Claimants failed and were dismissed. | 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.