Case 2404615/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Ian Kirby v Lancaster University — 2025

Case reference: 2404615/2023
Decision date: 2 April 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Cookson
Venue: Manchester
Panel members: Mrs M Plimley, Ms P Owen

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Ian Kirby

Respondent

Lancaster University

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The case was heard at Manchester on 10 to 13 March 2025 before Employment Judge Cookson, Mrs M Plimley and Ms P Owen. The claimant was Mr Ian Kirby and the respondent was Lancaster University. The written record of judgment, sent on 2 April 2025, records three complaints: unauthorised deductions from wages, detriment for making a protected disclosure, and unfair dismissal.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The written judgment record states only that the complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages were not well-founded and were dismissed; reasons were given orally and are not included in the record.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	The written judgment record states only that the complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure was not well-founded and was dismissed; reasons were given orally and are not included in the record.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The written judgment record states only that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed; reasons were given orally and are not included in the record.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.