Case 2301912/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Jack Hobson First v London Borough of Wandsworth Second Respondent: London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301912/2023
- Decision date
- 2 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clarke
- Venue
- London South Tribunal
- Panel members
- Mr C Wilby, Mr D Rogers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jack Hobson First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South Tribunal on 26 August 2024 before Employment Judge Clarke, sitting with Mr C Wilby and Mr D Rogers. The claimant was represented by his wife, Mrs Leah Hobson, and the first and second respondents were represented by Ms Kara Loraine of counsel.
The tribunal’s judgment states that the claimant’s claim for disability discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments and his claim for unfair dismissal were dismissed on withdrawal. The written judgment does not record any substantive findings on liability, because the claims were withdrawn before a merits determination.
The judgment also states that the reasons for the decision were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written judgment being sent to the parties. No remedy or monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim was recorded in the judgment as dismissed on withdrawal; no merits determination is recorded. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim was recorded in the judgment as dismissed on withdrawal; no merits determination is recorded. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.