Case 2501671/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Atkinson v H & P Freightways Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501671/2020
- Decision date
- 8 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
- Panel members
- Mrs P Wright, Mr S Wykes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Atkinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Middlesbrough on 6, 7 and 8 April 2022 before Employment Judge Aspden, Mrs P Wright and Mr S Wykes, unanimously found that Mr D Atkinson's complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded. It also found that his complaint that H & P Freightways Limited breached his contract of employment by dismissing him without notice was well founded.
The tribunal dismissed the Claimant's Equality Act 2010 complaints arising from his dismissal. The extracted judgment does not identify the specific reasoning for that dismissal, and the written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
No remedy figures are recorded in the extracted judgment. The written record is therefore a liability decision only, and it does not set out any basic award, compensatory award, interest, or total monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the Claimant's complaint that the Respondent breached his contract of employment by dismissing him without notice was well founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers to complaints that the Respondent contravened the Equality Act 2010 by dismissing the Claimant, but does not spell out the protected characteristic in the extracted text; this classification follows the case listing context. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.