Case 3309712/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms S Mallik, Solicitor For the v Mr A Buckley, Solicitor — 2024

Case reference: 3309712/2023
Decision date: 21 March 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge M Ord Appearances

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms S Mallik, Solicitor For the

Respondent

Mr A Buckley, Solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the hearing in Cambridge by CVP on 8 March 2024, before Employment Judge M Ord, the Claimant, Mr Colin Denison, withdrew his disability discrimination complaint. The judgment therefore records that claim as dismissed on withdrawal. The decision also states that the claims against the Second Respondent, Grant Miles, were dismissed, and that the remaining claims against the First Respondent were unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, breach of contract (notice pay) and holiday pay.

The only substantive merits finding recorded in the extract is that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed. The Respondent accepted that it followed no fair procedure when dismissing him, and the Tribunal said the dismissal was unfair on procedural grounds only. The judgment records that the Respondent accepted the Claimant was entitled to a finding of unfair dismissal.

No separate monetary remedy is set out in the extracted judgment text, and no distinct award figures are recorded for any of the claims in the material provided.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	At the hearing the Claimant withdrew the disability discrimination claim; the judgment records it as dismissed on withdrawal.	Withdrawn	Disability	—
Unfair dismissal	The Respondent accepted that it followed no fair procedure when dismissing the Claimant, and the dismissal was found to be unfair on procedural grounds only.	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.