Case 2502030/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. P Dickson v Kevin Paul Storie (T/A HMS Mot and Service Centre) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2502030/2019
- Decision date
- 2 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. P Dickson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge recorded that the respondent had failed to comply with the orders made on 21 January 2020. On the information available to the tribunal, the response was struck out under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
As a result, the judgment states that the listed complaints were well-founded and succeeded: unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unlawful disability discrimination, unlawful age discrimination, and failure to pay accrued holiday pay. No remedy was determined in this judgment; the judge said any remedy due to the claimant would be decided at a further hearing, with details to be sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent's response was struck out under Rule 21, and the complaint was recorded as well-founded and succeeding. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The respondent's response was struck out under Rule 21, and the complaint was recorded as well-founded and succeeding. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Described in the judgment as unlawful disability discrimination; the response was struck out and the complaint was recorded as well-founded and succeeding. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | Described in the judgment as unlawful age discrimination; the response was struck out and the complaint was recorded as well-founded and succeeding. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records a complaint of failure to pay accrued holiday pay; the response was struck out and the complaint was recorded as well-founded and succeeding. | Upheld | — | — |
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.