Case 3313076/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Wasterfall v NetApp UK Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313076/2021
- Decision date
- 5 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Panel members
- Mr A Kapur, Mrs F Betts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Wasterfall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Reading by CVP on 12 to 16 February 2024 before Employment Judge Anstis, sitting with Mr A Kapur and Mrs F Betts. The claimant, Mr D Wasterfall, appeared in person and the respondent, NetApp UK Ltd, was represented by counsel. The written judgment dated 16 February 2024 states simply that the claimant's claims were dismissed.
The public record provided in the extracted text does not include written reasons for the dismissal. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by a party within 14 days of the sending of the written record. No remedy or award is recorded in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The written record records that the claimant's claims were dismissed. No separate written reasons are provided in the extracted text. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written record records that the claimant's claims were dismissed. No separate written reasons are provided in the extracted text. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.