Case 3300040/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Kouzon v Churchill Group — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300040/2025
- Decision date
- 8 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Kouzon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Quill sat alone at Watford Employment Tribunal, in private by video, on 14 November 2025. Mr J Kouzon did not attend and was not represented. Churchill Group was represented by Mr R Scuplak, associate.
The published judgment states that the claim was dismissed in accordance with Rule 47. It also records that all future hearing dates were cancelled. The decision therefore disposes of the proceedings on a procedural basis arising from the claimant's non-attendance, rather than on the merits of any pleaded allegations.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The judgment says written reasons will only be supplied if requested within 14 days of the date the judgment was sent to the parties, and notes the usual route for reconsideration. The published record contains no monetary award and no substantive findings on liability.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Underlying claim type inferred from the published case listing; the judgment itself records only that the claim was dismissed in accordance with Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Underlying claim type inferred from the published case listing; the judgment itself records only that the claim was dismissed in accordance with Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47
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.