Case 6011841/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Philip Meakins v AstraZeneca UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011841/2024
- Decision date
- 16 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Philip Meakins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing heard by video at Watford on 25 September 2025, Employment Judge O'Rourke recorded that Mr Meakins' claims of constructive unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal and automatic constructive unfair dismissal were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal granted Mr Meakins' application to amend his claim to add a claim of victimisation. It refused his application for a rule 49 anonymity order in respect of a witness. It also refused AstraZeneca UK Limited's application for a deposit order in respect of the claimant's claim of indirect discrimination: same disadvantage under s.19A Equality Act. The judgment recorded no monetary remedy or final merits outcome for the victimisation or indirect discrimination matters.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Automatic constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Victimisation | The application to amend the claim to add victimisation was granted; no merits outcome was recorded. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to a claim of indirect discrimination: same disadvantage under s.19A Equality Act, but the extracted judgment text does not state the protected characteristic. The respondent's deposit order application was refused; no merits outcome was recorded. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.19A Equality Act
- rule 49 anonymity order
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.