Case 2409664/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Jones (Solicitor) For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2409664/2023
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward
- Panel members
- Mr P Dodd, Ms K Fulton
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr R Jones (Solicitor) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at Manchester by video before Employment Judge Kenward, Mr P Dodd and Ms K Fulton on 8 to 12 December 2025. The judgment records that the claimant brought complaints including constructive unfair dismissal, disability-related complaints, unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract.
The Tribunal dismissed each stated complaint as not well-founded. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes the complaint as '(constructive) unfair dismissal' and states it was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability were not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability were not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The complaints of harassment related to disability were not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages and states they were not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The complaints of breach of contract were not well-founded and dismissed. | 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.