Case 2503457/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr D Holliday v British Telecommunications plc — 2019

Case reference: 2503457/2018
Decision date: 27 February 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Shepherd

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr D Holliday

Respondent

British Telecommunications plc

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant presented claims of unfair dismissal, age discrimination, disability discrimination and breach of the Working Time Regulations against British Telecommunications plc.

Notice of the claim was sent to the respondent on 25 January 2019. No response was presented, the time for presenting a response had expired, and no valid response had been presented.

On the information before Employment Judge Shepherd, the claim succeeded under Rule 21. The remedy was not determined in this judgment and was listed for a separate remedy hearing.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Rule 21 judgment; remedy to be determined at a separate remedy hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Age discrimination	Rule 21 judgment; remedy to be determined at a separate remedy hearing.	Upheld	Age	—
Disability discrimination	Rule 21 judgment; remedy to be determined at a separate remedy hearing.	Upheld	Disability	—
Working time regulations	Described in the judgment as breach of the Working Time Regulations. Rule 21 judgment; remedy to be determined at a separate remedy hearing.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.