Case 3305148/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Kiernan v SDC Builders Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305148/2022
- Decision date
- 15 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Kiernan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the case was heard at Norwich by CVP on 7, 8 and 12 to 15 May 2025 before Employment Judge M Warren. The claimant was represented by Mr Green and the respondent by Mr McGee, counsel.
The written judgment states that the claimant's claims of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment by reason of religion or philosophical belief, together with his unfair dismissal claim, all failed and were dismissed. The extracted record does not set out any separate remedy because no claim succeeded.
The judgment was approved on 15 May 2025 and sent to the parties on 10 June 2025. The note in the record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's stated procedure.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination by reason of religion or philosophical belief. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Other | Indirect discrimination by reason of religion or philosophical belief; no specific enum exists in the locked taxonomy. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Harassment by reason of religion or philosophical belief. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | 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.