Case 6019403/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019403/2024
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge James
- Panel members
- Ms J Lancaster, Ms N Arshad-Mather
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Sheffield by video link from 24 to 28 November 2025 before Employment Judge James sitting with Ms J Lancaster and Ms N Arshad-Mather. The claimant, Mr Steven Nellis, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr G Price, counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim brought under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The written judgment records only that the claim was not upheld and dismissed, and it does not set out any further findings or remedy in the extracted text.
The tribunal also dismissed the allegations of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. The record does not provide written reasons because reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the note states that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's usual procedure.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not upheld and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Allegations of failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 were not upheld and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ss20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
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.