Case 2503335/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Poolan v David Lloyd Leisure Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2503335/2018
- Decision date
- 22 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Members
- Venue
- North Shields Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr D Morgan, Ms E Menton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Poolan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal complaint because it was not well founded.
The claimant withdrew the complaints of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures, automatic unfair dismissal for complaining about matters relating to health and safety, and unlawful disability discrimination. Those withdrawn complaints were dismissed upon withdrawal. No remedy was awarded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for complaining about matters relating to health and safety was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaints of unlawful disability discrimination were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.