Case 3303466/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Edwards v Londonenergy Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303466/2019
- Decision date
- 5 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Members
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Mr A Hayes, Mr M Kidd
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Edwards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Edwards brought claims of unfair dismissal and indirect age discrimination against LondonEnergy Ltd. The tribunal found that he was dismissed for conduct, which was a potentially fair reason falling within s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Applying that framework, the tribunal held that the respondent acted fairly in treating that reason as sufficient to justify dismissal. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed and was dismissed.
The tribunal also found that the complaint of indirect age discrimination was not established and dismissed that claim as well. The judgment contains no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for conduct, which was a potentially fair reason under s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and held that the respondent acted fairly in dismissing him. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of indirect age discrimination was not established. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.