Case 3304240/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Martin Remo v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 3304240/2024
- Decision date
- 30 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taft REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Martin Remo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at Cambridge Employment Tribunal on 28, 29 and 30 January 2026 before Employment Judge Taft. The claimant was represented by Ms Wisniewska and the respondent by Mr Stenson.
The Tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. It also held that the complaint of direct sex discrimination was not well-founded and dismissed it.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing. The text does not include written reasons, remedy findings, or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal is not well-founded and that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. Written reasons were not provided in the text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct sex discrimination is not well-founded and is dismissed. Written reasons were not provided in the text. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.