Case 3310703/2023 · Employment Tribunal
the Claimant attended without legal represention For the v Mr R. Powell — 2025
- Case reference
- 3310703/2023
- Decision date
- 1 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hunt
- Panel members
- Ms C. Smith, Mr B. McSweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
the Claimant attended without legal represention For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case remotely at Cambridge on 24-28 March 2025 before Employment Judge Hunt, Ms C. Smith and Mr B. McSweeney. The claimant attended without legal representation and the respondent was represented by Mr R. Powell.
In the written record sent to the parties on 1 May 2025, the tribunal unanimously stated that the disability discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 were not well-founded and were dismissed. The same judgment record states that the claim of unfair dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was also not well-founded and dismissed.
The judgment record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons were not requested, so the published record contains the outcomes only and no further findings on liability or remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written record states that the disability discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 were not well-founded and were dismissed. It also records that written reasons were not requested. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim of unfair dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well-founded and dismissed. The written record does not set out further reasoning. | 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.