Case 6015402/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Tucker v First Cymru Buses Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015402/2025
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harfield
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Mr M Vine, Mr S Head
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Tucker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at Cardiff on 10, 11 and 12 December 2025 before Employment Judge R Harfield, Mr M Vine and Mr S Head. Mr Tucker represented himself and the respondent was represented by Ms Kendrew, solicitor.
The unanimous judgment records that the complaints of direct age discrimination, harassment related to age and victimisation were not well founded and were dismissed. The written judgment does not contain reasons beyond stating that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states the complaint of direct age discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in the text. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states the complaint of harassment related to age was not well founded and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in the text. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states the complaint of victimisation was not well founded and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in the 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.