Case 6021287/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Walker v Action For Children — 2026
- Case reference
- 6021287/2024
- Decision date
- 14 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham
- Panel members
- Mr S Holford, Ms W Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Walker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the matter at Bury St Edmunds by video on 13 and 14 January 2026 before Employment Judge Graham, sitting with Mr S Holford and Ms W Smith. The claimant was self-represented and the respondent was represented by counsel. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons are provided in the record supplied.
The judgment disposes of the discrimination complaint by recording that it was dismissed upon withdrawal. The written record does not identify the protected characteristic or set out any substantive findings on that complaint.
The breach of contract complaint is recorded as having failed and being dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and no remedy figures are set out in the written decision supplied.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment states: 'The discrimination complaint is dismissed upon withdrawal.' It does not identify the legal basis or protected characteristic in the text supplied. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the breach of contract complaint failed and was dismissed. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.