Case 2301928/2022 · Employment Tribunal
E Staples v P Mercer Held at: London South Employment Tribunal by video — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301928/2022
- Decision date
- 29 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E Staples
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London South Employment Tribunal by video before Employment Judge Burge, heard the case on 14, 15, 16 and 17 October 2025. The written judgment records two successful claims: the Claimant was unfairly dismissed, and the Claimant's complaint of less favourable treatment under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 was successful.
The written record is limited to the formal outcomes. It does not set out the tribunal's oral reasons, and it records that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the notes on the judgment. No remedy figures are stated in the record provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written record records the claim as successful. No written reasons or monetary award are included in the record provided; the notes state that reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | The tribunal recorded that the Claimant's complaint of less favourable treatment under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 was successful. No written reasons or separate award are included in the record provided. | Upheld | — | — |
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.