Case 3311803/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Byrne v John Lewis plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311803/2022
- Decision date
- 3 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr A Scott, Ms A Brosnan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Byrne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the complaint of unfair dismissal, finding that it was not well-founded. It also found that the claimant's dismissal was not in breach of contract and that he was not entitled to receive notice or pay in lieu of notice.
The tribunal found that the claimant was disabled at all relevant times and that the respondent had knowledge of that at all relevant times. However, the complaints of disability discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments, including the complaint that dismissal was disability discrimination, failed and were dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the complaints that there had been unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, finding that they were not well-founded. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the dismissal was not in breach of contract and that the claimant was not entitled to notice or pay in lieu of notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment identifies complaints of disability discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments, including a complaint that dismissal was disability discrimination, and dismisses them. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages were not well-founded and were dismissed. | 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.