Case 2501337/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C. Foreman v Permoid Industries Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501337/2020
- Decision date
- 9 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge AE Pitt
- Venue
- Newcastle via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C. Foreman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Newcastle via CVP on 2 March 2021, Employment Judge AE Pitt heard the claim brought by Mr C. Foreman against Permoid Industries Limited. The written judgment dated 9 March 2021 records that the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr S Draycott, General Manager.
The tribunal upheld both unfair dismissal claims recorded in the judgment. It found that the claimant's claim for unfair dismissal pursuant to section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded, and it also found that the claimant's claim for unfair dismissal pursuant to section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded.
The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days of the sending of the decision. The judgment does not record any monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant's unfair dismissal claim pursuant to section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996 to be well founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant's unfair dismissal claim pursuant to section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 to be well founded. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 98 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.