Case 3300508/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300508/2021
- Decision date
- 1 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Mr A. Hayes, Mr C. Grant
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard this case at Cambridge on 28, 29 and 30 November and 1 December 2022 before Employment Judge de Silva KC, Mr A. Hayes and Mr C. Grant. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The written judgment records that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed, and that the disability discrimination claim under sections 13, 15 and 20 to 21 of the Equality Act 2010 was also dismissed.
The written record does not set out the tribunal's reasoning because reasons were given orally at the hearing, and it states that written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made at the hearing or within 14 days of the written record being sent. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ss.13, 15 and 20 to 21 Equality Act 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.