Case 1302253/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1302253/2019
- Decision date
- 7 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes
- Panel members
- Mrs R Pelter, Mr T Liburd
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge Hughes with lay members Mrs R Pelter and Mr T Liburd. The claimant, David Apps, appeared in person and the respondent, RNA Analytics Ltd, was represented by Miss H Platt, Counsel. The written record states that the tribunal's judgment was unanimous.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's disability discrimination claims, a harassment claim because of the alleged protected characteristic of belief, and claims under sections 111 and 112 of the Equality Act 2010 were not well-founded. All of those claims were dismissed.
The written record does not set out the tribunal's reasons in detail. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision. No remedy or monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal recorded the claimant's disability discrimination claims as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal recorded a harassment claim because of the alleged protected characteristic of belief as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Other | Claims under sections 111 and 112 of the Equality Act 2010 were recorded as not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.