Case 1303009/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K. Annand - Counsel For the v Mr J.Arnold - Counsel Case No.1303009/2016 2 — 2018
- Case reference
- 1303009/2016
- Decision date
- 11 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Algazy QC
- Panel members
- Mr R.W. White, Mr C.J. Ledbury
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K. Annand - Counsel For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found unanimously that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 throughout the period from October 2015 to 18 April 2016. That finding was recorded as a preliminary conclusion and did not itself produce any award.
The tribunal then dismissed the claim for discrimination arising from disability. It also dismissed the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments. On the extracted text provided, no further written reasons are included beyond the note that oral reasons were given at the hearing.
The tribunal also dismissed the claim for harassment related to disability. The judgment records that all three substantive claims were not well founded and were dismissed unanimously by the tribunal sitting at Birmingham on 3-7 and 10 December 2018.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim for discrimination arising from disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Claim for harassment related to disability. | 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.