Case 3300600/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Anthony Lee Mitchell v Sandown Surrey and Hampshire Limited v — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300600/2024
- Decision date
- 17 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Read
- Venue
- Reading Tribunal
- Panel members
- Ms J Woodhead, Mr J Appleton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Anthony Lee Mitchell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Reading Tribunal on 14 to 17 April 2025 before Employment Judge Read, Ms J Woodhead and Mr J Appleton. The claimant, Mr Anthony Lee Mitchell, appeared in person and the respondent, Sandown Surrey and Hampshire Limited, was represented by counsel. The written judgment records that the tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing, so no written reasons were provided in the extracted decision.
The tribunal dismissed the complaint of unfair dismissal. It also dismissed the disability discrimination complaint pleaded as unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. The tribunal further dismissed the disability discrimination complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment extract. The decision states that all three complaints were not well-founded and were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability. | 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.