Case 1302543/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Badham v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd RECORD OF A PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 1302543/2022
- Decision date
- 11 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hena Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Badham
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered whether the claimant had a disability within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the time of the events in March 2022. The respondent had conceded by email that the claimant's IBS was a disability, but the issue for determination was whether stress and depression also met the statutory definition.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had not made out that he suffered a mental impairment meeting the definition of disability at the relevant time. It decided that the supporting evidence did not support a mental impairment of stress and depression before March 2022 that impacted day-to-day activities such as returning to work.
The Tribunal also dealt with late-filed material for the preliminary hearing. It allowed the respondent to rely only on the brief 2022 occupational health report and gave the claimant time to consider that report and the respondent's skeleton argument.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Public preliminary hearing on disability status. The Tribunal found the claimant had not made out that stress and depression met the definition of disability under s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. The respondent had conceded that the claimant's IBS was a disability. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.6 Equality Act 2010
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.