Case 6001236/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hearne v The Ethical Property Company plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001236/2023
- Decision date
- 20 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cuthbert
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Ms S Maidment, Ms J Killick
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hearne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Hearne brought claims against The Ethical Property Company Plc for direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and constructive unfair dismissal. The case was heard at Bristol on 28, 29, 30 and 31 May 2024 before Employment Judge Cuthbert, with Ms S Maidment and Ms J Killick sitting as lay members.
The judgment records that all three claims failed and were dismissed. The claim types identified in the written record are direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and constructive unfair dismissal.
The published document does not contain written reasons for the tribunal's decision. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the claimant's claim for direct disability discrimination failed and was dismissed. The written record does not set out the tribunal's reasons, noting that reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the claimant's claim for discrimination arising from disability failed and was dismissed. The written record does not set out the tribunal's reasons, noting that reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. The written record does not set out the tribunal's reasons, noting that reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.