Case 2300718/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Telesford v Marks and Spencer plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300718/2022
- Decision date
- 14 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mrs K Charman, Mr T Harrington-Roberts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Telesford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge Abbott, Mrs K Charman and Mr T Harrington-Roberts, recorded a unanimous judgment that it had jurisdiction to hear all of Mr Telesford’s complaints. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
All substantive complaints were dismissed. The claim of unfair dismissal under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded. The discrimination complaints were also dismissed: discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21, harassment related to disability under section 26, sexual harassment under section 26, and victimisation under section 27.
The written judgment also records that the complaints in respect of notice pay, holiday pay and other payments were dismissed upon withdrawal. No monetary award is recorded in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Sexual harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaints in respect of notice pay, holiday pay and other payments were dismissed upon withdrawal; the judgment does not break these out separately. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 15 of the Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 26 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 27 of the Equality Act 2010
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.