Case 6001286/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Fuidge v Phoenix Flooring Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001286/2023
- Decision date
- 5 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Mr H Patel, Mr K Sleeth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Fuidge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bristol Employment Tribunal on 18 November 2024 before Employment Judge J Bax, with Mr H Patel and Mr K Sleeth sitting as lay members. The claimant was Mr T Fuidge and the respondent was Phoenix Flooring Limited.
The judgment records only that the claims were dismissed upon their withdrawal by the claimant. No findings on the merits of the pleaded claims are set out in the text provided, and no remedy was awarded.
On the information in the judgment, the proceedings therefore ended without a substantive determination of the underlying allegations. The short form judgment does not identify separate reasons for each claim beyond the claimant's withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claims were dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. The withdrawal is not itemised by individual claim in the short judgment text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claims were dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. The withdrawal is not itemised by individual claim in the short judgment text. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claims were dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. The withdrawal is not itemised by individual claim in the short judgment text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claims were dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. The withdrawal is not itemised by individual claim in the short judgment text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.