Case 2601475/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v In house Barrister — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601475/2022
- Decision date
- 22 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a record of a closed telephone preliminary hearing before Employment Judge P Britton sitting alone on 9 November 2022. The claimant was Mr Scott Brazier and the respondent was Nottinghamshire County Council. The written record was sent to the parties on 22 November 2022.
The judgment records that the disability discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. It also records that the claims for breach of contract, non-payment of wages, and outstanding holiday pay were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The same record states that, after an application to amend was granted, the claims that proceeded were detriment for whistleblowing under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and constructive dismissal based on whistleblowing under section 103A of the same Act. No merits finding or remedy is recorded in this decision for those claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the disability discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal at the preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the breach of contract claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claim for non-payment of wages was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the claim for outstanding holiday pay was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.