Case 3200451/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Duggan v S Walsh & Son Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200451/2021
- Decision date
- 5 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms V Nikolaidou, Mr P Lush
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Duggan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Mr Duggan's claims for ordinary unfair dismissal, section 103A protected disclosure unfair dismissal, and age-related direct discrimination, each of which was recorded as not well-founded. It also noted that the wrongful dismissal breach of contract claim was dismissed upon withdrawal, and that the age-related harassment claim was struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure because a deposit was not paid.
The separate breach of contract claim concerning failure to provide a van succeeded. The tribunal found the Respondent was in breach of contract in failing to provide the Claimant with a van from 2 July 2020 to 16 December 2020 inclusive, and the parties agreed by consent that the remedy for that breach was £500.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 recorded as not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 for unfair dismissal - protected disclosure; recorded as not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Age-related direct discrimination claim recorded as not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | Wrongful dismissal breach of contract claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Harassment | Age-related harassment claim was struck out under rule 39(4) for non-payment of a deposit. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for failure to provide a van from 02/07/2020 to 16/12/2020 inclusive succeeded; remedy agreed by consent at £500. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £500
- across all upheld claims
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.