Case 3314601/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Miss E O’Leary, HR Consultant — 2021
- Case reference
- 3314601/2020
- Decision date
- 29 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Norwich heard the case on 27 and 28 October 2021 before Employment Judge Postle. The claimant, Mr G Phillips, brought claims of unfair dismissal said to arise from redundancy, together with Equality Act 2010 claims based on disability.
The tribunal rejected the unfair dismissal claim and held that Mr Phillips was not unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy. It also rejected the disability discrimination claims, stating that the claims for direct discrimination under section 13 and discrimination arising from disability under section 15 were not well founded.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and the written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing. No separate remedy findings are set out in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim that the dismissal was unfair by reason of redundancy; the tribunal held the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claims under the Equality Act 2010 for direct discrimination under section 13 and discrimination arising from disability under section 15 were 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.