Case 3315280/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M. Tint v UK Research and Innovation — 2026
- Case reference
- 3315280/2022
- Decision date
- 26 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S. Matthews
- Panel members
- Mrs. J. Buck, Mr. L. Hoey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M. Tint
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that Mr M. Tint's complaint of unfair dismissal against UK Research and Innovation was not well-founded. The written judgment records that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the complaints of direct age discrimination, direct race discrimination, and harassment related to race. Each of those complaints was recorded as not well-founded.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested under the tribunal rules. It does not record any monetary award, remedy, factual findings, or named legal tests beyond the operative conclusions dismissing the claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment identifies this as a complaint of direct age discrimination and dismisses it as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment identifies this as a complaint of direct race discrimination and dismisses it as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment identifies this as a complaint of harassment related to race and dismisses it as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.