Case 1300349/2017 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2017

Case reference: 1300349/2017
Decision date: 18 August 2017
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hughes

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Hughes on 26 July 2017. The tribunal determined the preliminary issue of whether Mr A Adenekan was a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act and, if so, when the respondent had the relevant knowledge.

The tribunal held that Mr Adenekan was a disabled person as defined by the Equality Act 2016, as stated in the written record, and found that the respondent's knowledge of his disability dated from 2 June 2016. No liability findings on the substantive discrimination claim are recorded in this judgment, and no remedy was assessed.

The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties on 18 August 2017.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person under the Equality Act and that the respondent's knowledge of that disability dated from 2 June 2016.	Upheld	Disability	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.