Case 2501687/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Kenneth Matthews v Morrison Data Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2501687/2021
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cline
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms MT Dowling, Ms L Hopley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Kenneth Matthews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Manchester Employment Tribunal over 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 February 2025 and 5 March 2025. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Scott Davis.
The written judgment records that the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination and harassment related to race were not well-founded. All of those claims were dismissed.
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. The written judgment therefore does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The written judgment identifies this as a claim for direct race discrimination and states that it was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The written judgment identifies this as harassment related to race and states that it was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.