Case 2303593/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Edwards v Abellio London Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303593/2022
- Decision date
- 17 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker Representatives
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Edwards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard at Croydon on 16 and 17 May 2023 before Employment Judge Barker. The claimant was represented by counsel, as was the respondent.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims of trade union discrimination contrary to s152 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, unfair dismissal contrary to s94 Employment Rights Act 1996, and wrongful dismissal contrary to s86 Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and were dismissed. The written judgment states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the applicable time limit.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment describes this as a claim of trade union discrimination contrary to s152 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the unfair dismissal claim contrary to s94 Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states the wrongful dismissal claim contrary to s86 Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s152 Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s86 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.