Case 4106707/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Leonard v BT Group plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 4106707/2020
- Decision date
- 28 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Leonard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis preliminary hearing did not determine the merits of Mr Leonard's unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal recorded that Mr Leonard confirmed he wished to withdraw his disability discrimination claim, and the tribunal dismissed that claim following withdrawal under Rule 52.
The tribunal granted an Unless Order against Mr Leonard requiring further specification of his unfair dismissal case, including why he says the dismissal was unfair, the alleged ACAS Code breaches, and the remedy sought. The tribunal also granted an Unless Order against Mr Baird concerning the basis on which he said he had sufficient qualifying service to pursue unfair dismissal.
On case management, the tribunal combined Mr Leonard's and Mr Ferguson's claims, but refused at that stage to combine Mr Baird's claim because the jurisdictional issue concerning his length of service still required to be addressed. Mr Ferguson's listed hearing was postponed and a further case management preliminary hearing was fixed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant confirmed he wished to withdraw the disability discrimination claim. The tribunal noted the withdrawal and dismissed that claim under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.