Case 2407148/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Lloyd v JD Sports Fashion plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 2407148/2023
- Decision date
- 28 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson
- Panel members
- Mr I Frame, Ms L Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Lloyd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Manchester unanimously dismissed the claimant’s automatically unfair dismissal claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996, his ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and his wrongful dismissal claim. The written record does not set out the tribunal’s detailed reasoning; it records that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal also dismissed the discrimination and whistleblowing heads of claim: harassment related to race, victimisation, direct discrimination because of race, and whistleblowing detriment. No remedy was awarded on any claim, and the written judgment records dismissal of each issue only, without a separate damages or compensation assessment.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claim related to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | Whistleblowing detriment claim. | 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.