Case 1300616/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Horan, of counsel For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 1300616/2021
Decision date: 9 September 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Dean
Panel members: Mr D Faulconbridge, Mrs R Forrest

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr A Horan, of counsel For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that Mr Arnold was not a disabled person within the meaning of s6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time. On that basis, the discrimination complaints brought under s13 and ss20-21 Equality Act 2010 did not succeed.

The tribunal also held that Mr Arnold was fairly dismissed by GXO Logistics Drinks Ltd by reason of redundancy. His complaint of unfair dismissal therefore failed.

All complaints before the Employment Tribunal were dismissed. No monetary remedy was recorded in the written judgment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held the claimant was fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and that the unfair dismissal complaint did not succeed.	Dismissed	—	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person within s6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time, and the complaints of unlawful discrimination contrary to s13 and ss20-21 Equality Act 2010 did not succeed.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.