Case 2409870/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Johnstone v S J Bargh Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409870/2022
- Decision date
- 11 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson MEMBERS
- Panel members
- Ms A Eyre, Ms D Kelly
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Johnstone
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in Manchester on 4 and 5 December 2023 before Employment Judge Johnson, with Ms A Eyre and Ms D Kelly as members. The claimant, Mr B Johnstone, was unrepresented and the respondent, S J Bargh Limited, was represented by counsel. The written record states that the judgment was given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal held that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not well founded and was unsuccessful. It also held that the complaint of disability discrimination was not well founded and was unsuccessful. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
Because the written decision contains only the outcome and not the tribunal's detailed reasons, the extracted record is limited to the fact that both claims failed. The case therefore resolves as a dismissal of both the constructive dismissal claim and the disability discrimination claim, with no remedy awarded in the written record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment records a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal and states that it was not well founded and unsuccessful. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records a complaint of disability discrimination and states that it was not well founded and unsuccessful. | 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.