Case 3322565/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Lynsey Smith v Abbey Logistics Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3322565/2019
- Decision date
- 1 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Members
- Panel members
- Ms N Howard, Mr D Hart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Lynsey Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting remotely, unanimously found that Mr Lynsey Smith had been unfairly dismissed by Abbey Logistics Group Limited. The judgment does not set out the detailed reasoning in the extracted text, but the liability decision records that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded.
The tribunal also found that Mr Smith was the victim of unlawful discrimination on the protected characteristic of disability. That finding was made in relation to the complaints identified in paragraphs 15 to 27 of the Case Management Discussion report, subject to the exceptions that paragraph 22.6 had been withdrawn by the claimant and paragraphs 25.1 and 25.5 were not part of the upheld complaints.
No remedy figure is recorded in the extracted judgment text. The judgment only extends time for either party to request full written reasons to 16 April 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the claimant was the victim of unlawful discrimination on the protected characteristic of disability, as pleaded in paragraphs 15-27 of the Case Management Discussion report, except that paragraph 22.6 had been withdrawn and paragraphs 25.1 and 25.5 were excluded. | 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.