Vol. I·6 May 2026

Search the index

Loading…

Loading page content.

Tribunal Watch

A structured, cross-cut index of UK employment tribunal decisions, built from the primary record at gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions. Independent of HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice.

Not legal advice. Information on this site is a matter of public record; it is not guidance on any individual case.

Editorial

About this site
Methodology
Corrections policy
Editorial standards

Rights & privacy

Open Government Licence v3.0
Privacy notice
Data subject requests
Atom feed (recent decisions)

Claimant v Kennedy v M Cottington and I Cundliffe sued as Committee Members of the Golborne Bowling Club — Employment Tribunal 2023 | Tribunal Watch

Tribunal Watch/Kennedy v M Cottington and I Cundliffe sued as Committee Members of the Golborne Bowling Club/2401147/2023

Case 2401147/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Claimant v Kennedy v M Cottington and I Cundliffe sued as Committee Members of the Golborne Bowling Club — 2023

Case reference: 2401147/2023
Decision date: 24 November 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Shotter

Indexed: 26 April 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Respondent

Kennedy v M Cottington and I Cundliffe sued as Committee Members of the Golborne Bowling Club

Claims brought

5 categories

Age discrimination
Breach of contract
Redundancy
Unfair dismissal
Working time regulations

Source tags (gov.uk)

Age Discrimination
Breach of Contract
Contract of Employment
Redundancy
Unfair Dismissal and Working Time Regulations

Outcomes per claim are extracted in a second pass and are not yet published on this page.

Source document

Primary record

The full judgment is available on gov.uk under the .

Open Government Licence v3.0

Judgment 1 (PDF)
Judgment 2 (PDF)
Judgment 3 (PDF)
Judgment 4 (PDF)
Judgment 5 (PDF)

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.