Case 2408752/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Tunnicliffe v Peninsula Business Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2408752/2023
- Decision date
- 22 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Tunnicliffe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal's written judgment records that all of the claimant's complaints were dismissed. It states that the complaints of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, direct disability discrimination, harassment related to discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and indirect disability discrimination were not well-founded.
The case was heard at Manchester between 14 and 18 July 2025 before Employment Judge Childe. The note attached to the judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested in accordance with the procedure set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Judgment lists direct disability discrimination as not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Judgment lists harassment related to discrimination as not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Judgment lists discrimination arising from disability as not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Judgment lists indirect disability discrimination as not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.