Case 3205192/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J MacArthur v Allen Ford (UK) Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205192/2021
- Decision date
- 3 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov Members
- Panel members
- M Daniels, S Woodhouse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J MacArthur
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at East London Hearing Centre, sitting by video on 28 February and 1 to 3 March 2023, heard Mr J MacArthur's claims against Allen Ford (UK) Limited. The panel comprised Employment Judge P Klimov with lay members M Daniels and S Woodhouse.
The written judgment is very short and states only that all of the claimant's complaints in the claim failed and were dismissed. No separate findings, legal reasoning, or claim-specific conclusions are set out in the extracted text provided.
On the available text, the tribunal therefore dismissed the pleaded complaints in full, including the unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, breach of contract, and unlawful deduction from wages claims reflected in the case listing. No monetary award or other remedy is recorded in the judgment text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that all of the claimant's complaints failed; it gives no claim-specific reasoning or remedy split. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that all of the claimant's complaints failed; it gives no claim-specific reasoning or remedy split. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that all of the claimant's complaints failed; it gives no claim-specific reasoning or remedy split. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that all of the claimant's complaints failed; it gives no claim-specific reasoning or remedy split. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.