Case 2500955/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Bullock v Trinity Transport Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500955/2021
- Decision date
- 24 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Bullock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The respondent had not entered a response and did not attend or provide representation. Employment Judge Martin heard from the claimant’s representative at a hearing in private by telephone on 7 September 2021.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal and breach of contract (notice pay) were both well-founded. Those claims were not quantified in this judgment: the tribunal directed that the case be listed for a remedies hearing with a time estimate of one hour.
The claimant’s complaints of detriment for asserting a statutory right and/or making a protected interest disclosure, together with his complaint of age discrimination, were dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment does not record any substantive merits findings on those withdrawn complaints, and it records no award in this liability judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded. The case was listed for a remedies hearing, so no award was quantified in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the notice pay breach of contract complaint well-founded. No monetary figure was fixed because the case was adjourned to a remedies hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment grouped the complaint of detriment for asserting a statutory right and/or making a protected interest disclosure. It was dismissed upon withdrawal and no merits finding was made. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The age discrimination complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment records no merits determination on this claim. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
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.