Case 2501757/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr B J Foulger v Middlesbrough Council — 2024

Case reference: 2501757/2024
Decision date: 15 August 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr B J Foulger

Respondent

Middlesbrough Council

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

On 19 August 2024 Employment Judge Sweeney heard the claimant's application for interim relief in a trade-union dismissal case. The tribunal found that it appeared likely that, at the final hearing, it would find that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed by virtue of section 152 TULRCA 1992. The respondent stated that it was unwilling to reinstate or reengage the claimant in accordance with section 163(2)(b). The judgment is an interim relief decision only and does not determine the underlying unfair dismissal complaint finally.

Because that threshold was met, the tribunal ordered continuation of the claimant's contract of employment under section 164(1) TULRCA 1992 from 22 July 2024, being the date of termination, until the determination or settlement of the unfair dismissal complaint. For each normal pay period, or part of a normal pay period, between 22 July 2024 and the Relevant Date, the respondent was ordered to pay £3,185 gross per month, with continued deduction of the £1,500 monthly AVC pension contribution, producing monthly net pay of £1,480. Payment for periods wholly after the order was to be made on the normal pay day, and payment for the period from 22 July 2024 to 19 August 2024 was due by 30 September 2024.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Interim relief application under section 161 TULRCA 1992 granted on the basis that it appeared likely the tribunal would find, under section 152 TULRCA 1992, that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. The respondent stated it was unwilling to reinstate or reengage the claimant, so the tribunal made a continuation order. No final merits determination was made in this judgment.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.