Case 6001013/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Angell v The Patford House Partnership — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001013/2023
- Decision date
- 17 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley
- Panel members
- Mr J Ruddick, Mr C Williams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Angell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Bristol by video on 29 and 20 April and 1 and 2 May 2024, found that Mr A Angell’s claim of constructive unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded. The judgment states that this decision was unanimous.
Mr Angell’s claims of direct associative disability discrimination and indirect associative disability discrimination were each found not to be well founded and were dismissed. The written record does not set out the tribunal’s reasons, because the reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Compensation was not determined in this judgment. The Tribunal recorded that the compensation to which Mr Angell is entitled will be determined at a separate remedy hearing, and that notice of that hearing would be sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal described this as a claim of constructive unfair dismissal and held that it was well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal described this as a claim of direct associative disability discrimination and found it was not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal described this as a claim of indirect associative disability discrimination and found it was not well founded. | Dismissed | 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.