Case 3204571/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Fifth Row Technologies — 2021
- Case reference
- 3204571/2021
- Decision date
- 8 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr R Jones had been unfairly dismissed by Fifth Row Technologies. It also found that his dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice pay, and that his complaint of disability discrimination succeeded.
The judgment does not give detailed reasons for those conclusions in the extracted text. It records only the outcomes and states that the claimant was entitled to a remedy for his successful claim(s).
Remedy was not decided at this stage. The tribunal directed that the remedy would be determined at a Remedy Hearing listed for 18 February 2022.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was listed for a later Remedy Hearing on 18 February 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice pay. No amount was fixed in this judgment; remedy was deferred to a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of disability discrimination succeeds. The judgment does not set out the detailed findings or any award, and remedy was left to a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
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.