Case 3305415/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Yeboah v Sainsbury’s Supermarket Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305415/2024
- Decision date
- 15 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Yeboah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal at Watford heard the case on 14 and 15 October 2025 before Employment Judge Arullendran. The claimant brought claims against Sainsbury's Supermarket Limited for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and harassment on the grounds of age.
The written judgment records that each of the three claims was not well-founded and was dismissed. The record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons to be provided only if requested, so no further findings or remedy figures are available in the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment states that the claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in this short record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The written judgment states that the claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in this short record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The written judgment states that harassment on the grounds of age was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in this short record. | Dismissed | Age | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.