Case 3314419/2020 · Employment Tribunal

J Strong (lay representative) For the v C Noon (second respondent and director of first respondent) — 2023

Case reference: 3314419/2020
Decision date: 19 October 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Anderson
Venue: Reading
Panel members: B Osborne, C Juden

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

J Strong (lay representative) For the

Respondent

C Noon (second respondent and director of first respondent)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal upheld Mr Stubbs's claim of harassment related to disability. It dismissed his claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments, constructive automatically unfair dismissal for a health and safety reason, and detriment for having raised a health and safety matter.

The judgment states that remedy was not decided at the hearing and would be determined at a separate hearing. No monetary award is recorded in the extracted decision.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Recorded from the judgment.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Unfair dismissal	Judgment described this as constructive automatically unfair dismissal for a health and safety reason.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Judgment described this as detriment for having raised a health and safety matter.	Dismissed	—	—

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.