Vol. I·6 May 2026

Search the index

Loading…

Loading page content.

Tribunal Watch

A structured, cross-cut index of UK employment tribunal decisions, built from the primary record at gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions. Independent of HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice.

Not legal advice. Information on this site is a matter of public record; it is not guidance on any individual case.

Editorial

About this site
Methodology
Corrections policy
Editorial standards

Rights & privacy

Open Government Licence v3.0
Privacy notice
Data subject requests
Atom feed (recent decisions)

Mr. A. Daniel v Mr. C. Spence, Mrs. M Spence and Mr. A Spence T/A G.E. Spence and Sons (a partnership) — Employment Tribunal 2023 | Tribunal Watch

Tribunal Watch/Mr. C. Spence, Mrs. M Spence and Mr. A Spence T/A G.E. Spence and Sons (a partnership)/2500563/2022

Case 2500563/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr. A. Daniel v Mr. C. Spence, Mrs. M Spence and Mr. A Spence T/A G.E. Spence and Sons (a partnership) — 2023

Case reference: 2500563/2022
Decision date: 10 May 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge T.R. Smith
Venue: Teesside Justice Centre

Indexed: 26 April 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr. A. Daniel

Respondent

Mr. C. Spence, Mrs. M Spence and Mr. A Spence T/A G.E. Spence and Sons (a partnership)

Claims brought

4 categories

Breach of contract
Disability discrimination
Unfair dismissal
Unlawful deduction from wages

Source tags (gov.uk)

Breach of Contract
Disability Discrimination
Unfair Dismissal and Unlawful Deduction from Wages

Outcomes per claim are extracted in a second pass and are not yet published on this page.

Source document

Primary record

The full judgment is available on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Judgment 1 (PDF)
Judgment 2 (PDF)
Judgment 3 (PDF)
Judgment 4 (PDF)

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.