Case 3302447/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302447/2024
- Decision date
- 17 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Mrs L Salmon, Mr M Kidd
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a three day full merits hearing conducted by CVP, the Tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim.
The Tribunal also dismissed the disability discrimination claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 and the failure to make reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20/21 of the Equality Act 2010. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and does not include those reasons.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment records the outcome only; reasons were given orally and written reasons were not included in the provided text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. The written judgment records the outcome only; reasons were given orally and written reasons were not included in the provided text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20/21 of the Equality Act 2010. The written judgment records the outcome only; reasons were given orally and written reasons were not included in the provided text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20/21 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.