Case 2400117/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Stewart v BIFFA Waste Services Limited HELD AT: Manchester — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400117/2024
- Decision date
- 1 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Stewart
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with preliminary issues rather than the merits of the main claims. It found that the unfair dismissal complaint and the disability discrimination complaint in relation to dismissal were presented within the required time limit, so the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider them.
The judgment records that time limit issues relating to disability discrimination and to health and safety detriments about matters before dismissal would be considered at the final hearing. No substantive findings on those matters, and no remedy, were made in this judgment.
The victimisation complaints were dismissed because the claimant withdrew them. No award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found this complaint was presented within the required time limit and that it had jurisdiction to consider it. No merits decision or remedy was recorded in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the complaint of disability discrimination in relation to dismissal was presented within the required time limit and that it had jurisdiction to consider it. No merits decision or remedy was recorded in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal dismissed the victimisation complaints on withdrawal by the claimant. | 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.