Case 2302667/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr P Ward, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2025

Case reference: 2302667/2023
Decision date: 11 June 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge ANDREWS
Panel members: Mr J Hutchings, Ms G Mitchell

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr P Ward, Counsel For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal sat at London South before Employment Judge K Andrews with members Mr J Hutchings and Ms G Mitchell. The judgment records that the matter was heard from 2 June to 11 June 2025, with in-chambers dates on 12, 13 and 16 June 2025 and oral judgment given on 17 June 2025.

The unanimous decision of the tribunal was that the claims failed and were dismissed. The written record does not set out reasons, findings of fact, legal tests, or any remedy award, and states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time limit.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The short judgment states that the claims fail and are dismissed, but gives no written reasons or claim-by-claim analysis.	Dismissed	—	—
Race discrimination	The short judgment states that the claims fail and are dismissed, but gives no written reasons or claim-by-claim analysis.	Dismissed	Race	—
Religion or belief discrimination	The short judgment states that the claims fail and are dismissed, but gives no written reasons or claim-by-claim analysis.	Dismissed	Religion or belief	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The short judgment states that the claims fail and are dismissed, but gives no written reasons or claim-by-claim analysis.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 .

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.