Case 2305837/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Brendan Walker v John Lewis plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305837/2023
- Decision date
- 26 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harley Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Brendan Walker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Brendan Walker brought claims against John Lewis PLC. The case was heard at London South on 18 and 19 April 2024 before Employment Judge Harley, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the complaint was not well-founded and stated that the dismissal was fair.
The tribunal also dismissed the breach of contract claim in respect of notice pay, described in the judgment as wrongful dismissal. It found that this claim was not well-founded. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and that the dismissal was fair. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal said the claim for breach of contract in respect of notice pay (wrongful dismissal) was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.