Case 2307054/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Carl Wheeler v Churchill House School of English Language Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2307054/2025
- Decision date
- 16 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lumby JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Carl Wheeler
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claimant's complaints from 2017 were dismissed on withdrawal. It does not identify the specific types of those 2017 complaints.
The judgment also records that the claimant's 2024 complaints of indirect discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment and unauthorised deduction from wages were dismissed on withdrawal. It states that the claimant's other complaints remain.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that the claimant's complaints from 2017 are dismissed on withdrawal, but does not identify the claim types. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers to 2024 complaints of indirect discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments dismissed on withdrawal. The protected characteristic is inferred from the listing category rather than expressly stated in the judgment text. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the claimant's 2024 harassment complaint is dismissed on withdrawal. The protected characteristic is inferred from the listing category rather than expressly stated in the judgment text. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant's 2024 unauthorised deduction from wages complaint is dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.