Case 3303201/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Barry Connor v Clancy Docwra Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3303201/2020
- Decision date
- 25 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Barry Connor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Barry Connor brought claims against Clancy Docwra Ltd for unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, victimisation, and wrongful dismissal. The hearing took place at Watford before Employment Judge Bedeau on 25 February 2022. The tribunal rejected each claim.
The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. The direct race discrimination claim was also found not well-founded and dismissed. The victimisation claim was similarly dismissed as not well-founded, and the wrongful dismissal claim was found not proved and dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the direct race discrimination claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal held the victimisation claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the wrongful dismissal claim had not been proved. | 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.