Case 3314847/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Wilson v Avon Cosmetics — 2020
- Case reference
- 3314847/2019
- Decision date
- 13 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 5 February 2020, Employment Judge Ord sat alone in Cambridge. The respondent did not attend and was not represented, and no response had been received to the claimant’s complaints, so the matter was dealt with under Rule 21.
The tribunal found that Mr P Wilson was unfairly dismissed by Avon Cosmetics. It also found that the decision to dismiss him was an act of discrimination on the protected characteristic of disability. The judgment does not give further reasoning in the extracted text beyond recording those findings.
The tribunal did not determine remedy at this stage. It stated that the remedy to which the claimant was entitled would be decided at a separate remedy hearing, for which notice would be sent separately.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal, sitting alone at a preliminary hearing under Rule 21 after no response was received from the respondent, found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal also found that the decision to dismiss the claimant was an act of discrimination on the protected characteristic of disability. | Upheld | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.