Case 2415480/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Ibbotson v G4S Forensic & Medical Services (UK) Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415480/2020
- Decision date
- 13 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr I Ibbotson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Manchester on 20-22 December 2021 before Employment Judge Ord. The judgment records that the claimant, Mr I Ibbotson, was represented by Ms E Youshani and the respondents by Mr A Leonhardt.
The judgment states that, upon withdrawal of the claim against the first respondent, the claim against the first respondent was dismissed. It then found that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal against the second respondent was well founded.
The tribunal also found that the claimant's complaint of wrongful dismissal against the second respondent was well founded. No remedy figures are recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that, upon withdrawal of the claim against the first respondent, the claim against the first respondent is dismissed. The underlying claim type is not specified in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal against the second respondent was found well founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claimant's complaint of wrongful dismissal against the second respondent was found well founded. | Upheld | — | — |
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.