Case 3300816/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Jonathan Naylor (S) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300816/2021
- Decision date
- 27 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Talbot-Ponsonby Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by CVP at Reading on 22-24 June 2022 before Employment Judge Talbot-Ponsonby. The written record identifies the claimant as David Alan Tetlow and the respondent as Hewlett Packard Enterprise Limited. The judgment states that the claimant was in person and the respondent was represented by Jonathan Naylor.
The tribunal found that the claimant's claim was not well founded and dismissed it. No further reasons are included in the written record because reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and the note states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The judgment also records a costs order: the claimant was ordered to pay a contribution to the respondent's costs in the sum of £7,500 by 22 July 2022. No separate compensatory or other tribunal award in favour of the claimant is recorded in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant's claim was not well founded. It also ordered the claimant to pay a contribution to the respondent's costs of £7,500 by 22 July 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.