Case 2500272/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Ellsbury v Peninsula Business Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500272/2022
- Decision date
- 17 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Ellsbury
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis judgment records that a number of claims were dismissed because they had been withdrawn by the claimant. The withdrawn claims were automatic unfair dismissal, holiday pay, and a complaint under section 120 of the Equality Act 2010 alleging indirect disability discrimination.
It also records withdrawal of the unlawful deductions from wages and/or breach of contract claim to the extent that it related to a period of sickness absence. The judgment expressly preserves any element of the wages claim concerning deductions made in respect of training fees or expenses.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records withdrawal of the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Withdrawn only insofar as the claim related to a period of sickness absence; the judgment expressly excludes any claim concerning deductions for training fees or expenses. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Withdrawn only insofar as the claim related to a period of sickness absence; the judgment expressly excludes any claim concerning deductions for training fees or expenses. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records withdrawal of the complaint under section 120 Equality Act 2010 alleging indirect disability discrimination. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 120 Equality Act 2010
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.