Case 3314890/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3314890/2020
- Decision date
- 23 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King Members
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Mr G Page, Mrs A Bray
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Cambridge, sitting by CVP before Employment Judge King with lay members Mr G Page and Mrs A Bray, heard the case over 20-23 September 2022. The written judgment records that Mr Steven Hunt appeared in person and Amberstone Security Limited was represented by Mr Feeny of counsel.
The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The written record does not set out the tribunal's reasons in detail because reasons were given orally at the hearing, and no written reasons were provided in the decision record.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's age discrimination claim, stating that it was not well founded. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment, and no separate remedy figure is given for either claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The written judgment records that the claim was 'not well founded'. | Dismissed | Age | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.