Case 2601398/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Dixon v Loughborough University — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601398/2021
- Decision date
- 12 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Dixon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ahmed Date gave judgment on 12 August 2021 under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after the claim was issued and sent to Loughborough University on 23 June 2021. The judgment records that the respondent failed to present a valid response.
The tribunal therefore stated that the claim succeeds. It directed that the claimant's remedy would be determined at a remedy hearing on 28 October 2021, and the written judgment does not set out any separate monetary award or further merits findings in the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Not itemised in the operative text; classification follows the case listing supplied with the case. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Not itemised in the operative text; classification follows the case listing supplied with the case. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Not itemised in the operative text; classification follows the case listing supplied with the case. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Not itemised in the operative text; classification follows the case listing supplied with the case. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.