Case 3300270/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Bogle v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300270/2022
- Decision date
- 29 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Bogle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place in private by CVP before Employment Judge Maxwell on 29 November 2022. The claimant was represented by Ms Yates, lay representative, and the respondent by Ms French, solicitor.
The judgment records that the claimant withdrew the claims. The tribunal dismissed on withdrawal the claims of unfair dismissal, protected disclosure detriment, indirect discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. No remedy was awarded or assessed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states this claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment identifies this as a protected disclosure detriment claim and states it was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states an indirect discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal. The protected characteristic is not stated in the judgment text, but the listing category is disability discrimination. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |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.