Case 2502343/2023 · Employment Tribunal
P Duffy v London North Eastern Railway Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2502343/2023
- Decision date
- 18 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
- Venue
- Newcastle
- Panel members
- P Curtis, D Winter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
P Duffy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claim at Newcastle on 11-15 August 2025 before Employment Judge Aspden, P Curtis and D Winter. The claimant was represented by Mr John, counsel, and the respondent by Mr Peacock and, on 13 and 14 August, Mr Singh, solicitors.
The judgment records that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed. It also records that the claimant's complaint of discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. The written judgment does not identify the protected characteristic for the discrimination complaint or record a separate whistleblowing determination.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or within 14 days of the written record being sent. No remedy was awarded or quantified in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed. It does not give written reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the complaint of discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed, but the written judgment text does not identify the protected characteristic. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.