Case 2600909/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Stephen Hextall v Motus Group (UK) Ltd trading as Pentagon Group — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600909/2020
- Decision date
- 5 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed Members
- Panel members
- Mr G Edmondson, Mr C Tansley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Stephen Hextall
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting before Employment Judge Ahmed with members Mr G Edmondson and Mr C Tansley, heard the case remotely by video on 2, 3 and 4 August 2021. The unanimous judgment was that all of the Claimant’s complaints were dismissed.
The dismissed complaints were direct age discrimination, ordinary unfair dismissal, constructive dismissal, unfair dismissal pursuant to Regulation 7 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, and failure to provide written particulars of employment. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time, so the published decision contains only the outcomes and not the tribunal’s detailed reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment records dismissal of the Claimant’s complaint of direct age discrimination. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records dismissal of the Claimant’s complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment records dismissal of the Claimant’s complaint of constructive dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The judgment records dismissal of the Claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal pursuant to Regulation 7 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment records dismissal of the complaint of failure to provide written particulars of employment. | 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.