Case 6006840/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Tritschler v Dijla Limited t/a Domino’s Pizza — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006840/2025
- Decision date
- 10 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Macdonald Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Tritschler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Cardiff Employment Tribunal on 8, 9, and 10 December 2025 before Employment Judge E Macdonald. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The judgment records that the complaint of harassment related to sexual orientation, the complaints of victimisation, and the complaint of discriminatory constructive dismissal were not well-founded and were dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not include further findings or a remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment states that the complaint of harassment related to sexual orientation was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons are not included in the available text. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the complaints of victimisation were not well-founded and were dismissed. Written reasons are not included in the available text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a complaint of discriminatory constructive dismissal and states it was not well-founded and was dismissed. The protected characteristic for this complaint is not specified in the judgment text. | 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.