Case 3314974/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Roland Waters v DX Network Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3314974/2022
- Decision date
- 16 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Ms Marg Harris, Mr Brian Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Roland Waters
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Roland Waters brought claims against DX Network Services Limited for age discrimination, disability discrimination and automatically unfair dismissal. The matter was heard at Cambridge on 1, 2 and 15 August 2024 before Employment Judge Michell, Ms Marg Harris and Mr Brian Smith, with Mr Waters appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel.
In a unanimous judgment dated 16 August 2024, the tribunal held that the claims of age discrimination, disability discrimination and automatically unfair dismissal under s.103B Employment Rights Act 1996 were not well founded and dismissed them all. The extracted record does not set out the tribunal's factual findings or reasoning beyond that outcome.
No monetary award is recorded in the extracted judgment. The decision also states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Claim of age discrimination under s.26 Equality Act 2010. The supplied record states only that it was not well founded and dismissed; no further reasons are set out in the extracted text. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim of disability discrimination under s.26 Equality Act 2010. The supplied record states only that it was not well founded and dismissed; no further reasons are set out in the extracted text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatically unfair dismissal claim under s.103B Employment Rights Act 1996. The supplied record states only that it was not well founded and dismissed; the underlying protected disclosure facts are not given in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.103B Employment Rights Act 1996
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.