Case 2304577/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Toolstation — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304577/2018
- Decision date
- 20 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott QC
- Panel members
- Ms N Christofi, Ms S Khawaja
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by Employment Judge Truscott QC sitting with Ms N Christofi and Ms S Khawaja. The claimant was in person and the respondent was represented by a solicitor. The tribunal recorded that the hearing was by video and that a face-to-face hearing was not practicable.
The unanimous judgment dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also dismissed two religion or belief discrimination claims: one arising from the alleged failure to investigate the claimant's complaint about the incident on 2 September 2018, and one arising from the claimant's dismissal.
The extract provided records only the tribunal's dispositive findings and does not set out any separate remedy award or detailed reasoning. No monetary award was made on the face of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said the claim under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Claim based on an alleged failure to investigate the claimant's complaint about the incident on 2 September 2018 was not well founded. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Claim based on dismissal was not well founded. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
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.