Case 6022840/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Downs v Lamb Weston / Meijer UK Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6022840/2024
- Decision date
- 15 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Downs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the complaints of unfair dismissal, detriment for making a protected disclosure, wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, and unauthorised deductions. It recorded that those complaints were brought out of time where it was reasonably practicable to have brought them in time.
The Tribunal also dismissed the discrimination complaint. It recorded that the complaint was brought out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The claim was dismissed in full.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as brought out of time where it was reasonably practicable to have brought it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes this as detriment for making a protected disclosure and dismisses it as brought out of time where it was reasonably practicable to have brought it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed as brought out of time where it was reasonably practicable to have brought it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed as brought out of time where it was reasonably practicable to have brought it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as unauthorised deductions and dismisses it as brought out of time where it was reasonably practicable to have brought it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment refers generally to discrimination and says it was brought out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The gov.uk listing category identifies age discrimination. | Dismissed | Age | — |
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.