Case 1302112/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. B. Sandhu 1st v PMP Recruitment Limited (in administration) 2nd Respondent: CEVA Logistics Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1302112/2022
- Decision date
- 13 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MANLEY Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. B. Sandhu 1st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard a preliminary issue on whether Mr Sandhu was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, on the basis of psoriasis, post-traumatic stress disorder and whiplash. It recorded that PTSD and whiplash did not satisfy the statutory definition of disability.
The tribunal found that Mr Sandhu was disabled at the material time by reason of psoriasis. The written judgment states that this applied from 15 October 2022, described as the start of his employment, to 13 January 2022, described as the date of the last discriminatory act complained of; that date range is internally inconsistent in the text and is reported as written.
No monetary award was made in this judgment, which decided only the preliminary disability issue rather than any final liability or remedy question on the underlying discrimination claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found the claimant was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of psoriasis. It found PTSD and whiplash did not meet the statutory definition of disability. The written reasons record the material-time dates inconsistently as running from 15 October 2022 to 13 January 2022, which appears internally inconsistent and is transcribed as written. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- statutory definition of 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.