Case 3306586/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Wilson v Ice Cool Servicing Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3306586/2022
- Decision date
- 5 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mr L Hoey, Ms A Brown
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal at Reading, comprising Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst with Mr L Hoey and Ms A Brown, heard Mr N Wilson's claims against Ice Cool Servicing Ltd on 12 to 14 February 2024. The judgment records that the claims of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment in relation to disability all failed.
The tribunal also dismissed the claim of ordinary unfair dismissal. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties on 5 March 2024. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| 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.