Case 2302293/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Simon Box v East Kent Road Car Company Ltd (t/a Stagecoach South East) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302293/2022
- Decision date
- 27 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall
- Panel members
- Ms Effeny, Mr Newlyn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Simon Box
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place on 18 November 2024 at London South by CVP before Employment Judge Rice-Birchall, Ms Effeny and Mr Newlyn. The record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of breach of contract/wrongful dismissal in relation to notice pay, the unfair dismissal complaint, the direct disability discrimination complaint, the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, and the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability. On the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent. No award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint of breach of contract/wrongful dismissal in relation to notice pay; found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.