Case 2600756/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Mistry v Croner-i Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600756/2023
- Decision date
- 16 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
- Panel members
- Mr C Tansley, Mrs J Morrish
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Mistry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Leicester on 9, 10, 11 and 12 September 2024 before Employment Judge Adkinson sitting with lay members Mr C Tansley and Mrs J Morrish. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The respondent made an application for costs, but that application was later withdrawn. The tribunal also extended time for the claimant to present his direct race discrimination claim, but the claim was dismissed.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s breach of contract claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. It also dismissed the claim concerning the respondent’s failure to allow him to be accompanied to a relevant meeting. The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days, so no further reasoning or remedy award is set out in the extracted decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Recorded as dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Claim that the respondent failed to allow the claimant to be accompanied to a relevant meeting. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal extended time for presentation of the direct race discrimination claim, but the claim itself was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | 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.