Case 3300382/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Amesyu, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300382/2023
- Decision date
- 14 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Brown Members
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Ms S Limerick, Mr C Grant
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Amesyu, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Cambridge on 11 to 14 June 2024 before Employment Judge L Brown, sitting with Ms S Limerick and Mr C Grant. The judgment records unanimous dismissal of all claims brought by Mr Michael Hunt against Ikea Distribution Services Limited: unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, direct disability discrimination, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed. The text contains a typographical error ('fails') but the outcome is clear. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaint dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | 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.