Case 3213206/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M O’Doherty v OCS Group UK Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3213206/2020
- Decision date
- 10 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Elgot Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr P Lush, Mr K Rose
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M O’Doherty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at the East London Hearing Centre on 9 May 2023 before Employment Judge B Elgot, sitting with members Mr P Lush and Mr K Rose. The Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by counsel.
The Tribunal recorded judgment under Rule 52 that all claims in the case were dismissed upon the Claimant's oral withdrawal at the hearing. The Respondent made no application for costs against the Claimant. No written reasons were provided in the judgment document, subject to the usual right to request them.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that all claims were dismissed upon oral withdrawal by the Claimant at the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The gov.uk listing identifies age discrimination; the judgment itself does not set out particulars and states that all claims were dismissed upon oral withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The gov.uk listing identifies disability discrimination; the judgment itself does not set out particulars and states that all claims were dismissed upon oral withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 52 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.