Case 3310282/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3310282/2023
- Decision date
- 24 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Members
- Panel members
- Ms J Nicholas, Mr C Langman
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claims at Norwich on 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 January 2025 before Employment Judge Postle, sitting with Ms J Nicholas and Mr C Langman. Its judgment records that the claims were brought by Mr Ferdinand Pick and Ms Joanna Cox against Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust.
The tribunal unanimously held that both claimants were not constructively unfairly dismissed. It therefore dismissed both constructive dismissal claims.
It also held that Ms Joanna Cox's claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 for discrimination arising from disability was not well founded, and that claim was dismissed.
As the final order, each claimant was ordered to pay a contribution towards the respondent's costs in the sum of £10,000 within 28 days of 10 January 2025. The judgment does not record any award of compensation, basic award, or injury to feelings to either claimant.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The first claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim was unanimously rejected; the tribunal held that he was not constructively unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The second claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim was unanimously rejected; the tribunal held that she was not constructively unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The second claimant's s.15 Equality Act 2010 claim for discrimination arising from disability was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.