Case 1303295/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303295/2021
- Decision date
- 20 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
- Venue
- The
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing conducted by the cloud video platform in Birmingham on 20 January 2023, Employment Judge Perry sitting alone determined that Mr C Ugboh was not a person with a disability within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time.
Because that threshold was not met, his complaints of harassment related to disability, direct disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments all failed and were dismissed. The final merits hearing listed for 19 to 23 June 2023 was vacated. The written record also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not a person with a disability within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not a person with a disability within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not a person with a disability within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time. | Dismissed | 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.