Case 1300972/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1300972/2022
- Decision date
- 31 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dimbylow
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the matter at an open preliminary hearing on 4 January 2023 before Employment Judge Dimbylow. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. A Hindi interpreter was present throughout the hearing.
The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to establish that he was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period, which the judgment identified as 1 March 2021 to 31 January 2022. On that basis, it held that there was no jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s indirect disability discrimination claim or his claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Both of those claims were therefore dismissed. The tribunal also refused and dismissed the claimant’s application to amend his claim form. The judgment notes that further orders for the just disposal of the case were agreed at the end of the hearing and would be confirmed separately.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination claim. The tribunal found the claimant failed to establish that he was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period from 1 March 2021 to 31 January 2022, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim. The tribunal found the claimant had not established disability during the relevant period, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.