Case 3200096/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Rogers v Huws Gray Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200096/2024
- Decision date
- 30 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Park Members
- Panel members
- Dr J Ukemenam, Mrs J Land
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Rogers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Rogers brought claims of unfair dismissal, direct age discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010, discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act, and direct disability discrimination against Huws Gray Limited. The tribunal, sitting by video at East London Hearing Centre on 28, 29 and 30 January 2025 before Employment Judge Park with Dr J Ukemenam and Mrs J Land, held that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded and that the direct age discrimination claim also succeeded.
The tribunal further upheld the claim for discrimination arising from a disability. The direct disability discrimination claim did not succeed and was dismissed. The written record does not set out the factual findings in detail, but it does record the different outcomes on the age and disability claims and the dismissal of the direct disability discrimination allegation.
On remedy, the tribunal recorded that a reduction to the compensatory award or compensation for loss of earnings should be made because the claimant's employment would have terminated by 31 October 2023. The decision cites Polkey v Dayton Services Limited and Chagger v Abbey National PLC in connection with that reduction. The extracted record does not state the final monetary figures or any split between heads of loss.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim found well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010; claim found well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from a disability under s.15 Equality Act; claim found well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act
- Polkey v Dayton Services Limited
- Chagger v Abbey National PLC
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.