Case 3305956/2023 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2024

Case reference: 3305956/2023
Decision date: 10 September 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Venue: Bury St Edmunds
Panel members: Mr A Fryer, Mrs C A Smith

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the hearing in Bury St Edmunds on 13 to 16 August 2024, Employment Judge K J Palmer sat with lay members Mr A Fryer and Mrs C A Smith. The Tribunal gave an oral judgment and later recorded that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The decision recorded that the Claimant, Mr Thomas Batsford, brought claims against J D Wetherspoon Plc for direct age discrimination, direct sex discrimination, unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal unanimously dismissed the direct age discrimination claim and the direct sex discrimination claim. It upheld the unfair dismissal claim and the wrongful dismissal claim. The judgment record does not set out the Tribunal’s detailed reasons for those outcomes.

The matter was not finally concluded on remedy at that stage. The Tribunal listed a one-day remedy hearing before the same Tribunal on 15 November 2024 at Bury St Edmunds, so no monetary award was recorded in this decision.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	The judgment states that the Claimant’s direct age discrimination claim failed and was dismissed.	Dismissed	Age	—
Sex discrimination	The judgment states that the Claimant’s direct sex discrimination claim failed and was dismissed.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Unfair dismissal	The claim succeeded, with remedy to be determined at a later hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The claim succeeded, with remedy to be determined at a later hearing.	Upheld	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.