Case 2406669/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Przybylski v B&M Retail Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2406669/2023
- Decision date
- 9 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson MEMBERS
- Panel members
- Mrs L Heath, Mr A Wells
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Przybylski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal sat at Liverpool before Employment Judge Johnson with members Mrs L Heath and Mr A Wells. The claimant was unrepresented and the respondent was represented by counsel. The claimant did not attend on the first day and the hearing was adjourned to the second day.
The Tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing. In the written judgment, it found that the complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded and was unsuccessful.
The Tribunal also found that the complaints of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 and failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 were not well founded and were unsuccessful. No remedy was awarded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded and unsuccessful. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states the complaint of discrimination arising from disability contrary to section 15 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and unsuccessful. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states the complaint of failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments contrary to sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and unsuccessful. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 & 21 Equality Act 2010
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.