Case 6027838/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Edouard-Payne v HM Prison and Probation Service — 2026
- Case reference
- 6027838/2025
- Decision date
- 27 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Edouard-Payne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Watford Employment Tribunal hearing on 27 July 2026, Employment Judge Arullendran dismissed Mr K Edouard-Payne’s claims against HM Prison & Probation Service. The claims of unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal were each found not well-founded. The claims of direct sex discrimination, direct race discrimination and disability discrimination were also dismissed as not well-founded.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim of refusal to allow accompaniment at a disciplinary hearing as not well-founded. It dismissed the claim in respect of property because it lacked jurisdiction to hear it. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent did not attend. Summary reasons were given orally at the hearing, but the written judgment does not set out the underlying facts or reasoning beyond these conclusions. No monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The ordinary unfair dismissal claim was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The automatic unfair dismissal claim was separately dismissed as not well-founded. The judgment does not identify its statutory basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Disability discrimination was dismissed as not well-founded. The judgment does not specify the form of disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | The claim of refusal to allow accompaniment at a disciplinary hearing was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim in respect of property was dismissed because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The judgment does not describe the property claim further. |
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.