Case 3323755/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Trisoft Limited Second respondent: Mr Nigel Rogers FINAL HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 3323755/2021
- Decision date
- 14 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyes
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Mr K Rose, Mr B Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final hearing in Bury St Edmunds on 27 to 30 November 2023, before Employment Judge Boyes with Mr K Rose and Mr B Smith, the tribunal heard Mr Franklyn Thompson's claims against Trisoft Limited and Mr Nigel Rogers. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Nigel Rogers, the managing director.
The tribunal found that the race discrimination claim was not well founded and dismissed it. No separate remedy was recorded in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also held that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had not been employed for two years at the date of dismissal. No award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that the race discrimination claim was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had not been employed for two years at the date of dismissal. | Other | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.