Case 2411659/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr P Hodgkiss v Travis Perkins Trading Company Limited — 2019

Case reference: 2411659/2018
Decision date: 11 February 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Shotter REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr P Hodgkiss

Respondent

Travis Perkins Trading Company Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal's unanimous judgment was that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and that his direct age discrimination claim under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 was well-founded. Both matters were adjourned to remedy, so no award was decided in this judgment.

The tribunal also held that the claimant was not subject to indirect discrimination. His indirect discrimination claim under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed.

The judgment records that the remaining issues were listed for a one-day remedy hearing on 15 February 2019 at Liverpool Employment Tribunal.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and adjourned the unfair dismissal claim to remedy.	Upheld	—	—
Age discrimination	The tribunal found direct age discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and adjourned that claim to remedy.	Upheld	Age	—
Other	The claimant's indirect discrimination claim under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed.	Dismissed	Age	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.