Case 2500792/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Neal v Durham County Council — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500792/2020
- Decision date
- 3 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newburn Members
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Neal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr B Neal brought claims against Durham County Council for automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 104C of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and unfair dismissal contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The hearing took place at Newcastle CFCTC by Cloud Video Platform on 28 and 29 June 2021 before Employment Judge Newburn.
The tribunal recorded that the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104C was not well founded and dismissed it. It also recorded that the unfair dismissal claim under section 94 was not well founded and dismissed it.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the applicable time limit. No remedy was awarded or recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 104C Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal contrary to section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 104C Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.