Case 1303675/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Brown (Solicitor) For v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1303675/2019
- Decision date
- 29 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
- Panel members
- Miss SP Outwin, Mr MZ Khan
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr W Brown (Solicitor) For
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Birmingham on 27 to 29 July 2020, gave a unanimous judgment dismissing both claims brought by Mr Z Allen against Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council. Employment Judge Gaskell sat with Miss SP Outwin and Mr MZ Khan. Representation was by Mr W Brown, solicitor, for the claimant and Miss G Nicholls, counsel, for the respondent.
On the disability discrimination complaint, the tribunal found that the respondent did not, at any time material to the claim, act towards the claimant in contravention of section 39 of the Equality Act 2010. The written judgment records that the claimant's complaint of discrimination for a reason arising from disability, pursuant to section 120 of the Act, was dismissed.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was fairly dismissed. His unfair dismissal claim was held to be not well-founded and was dismissed. The written record contains only the dispositive findings and no monetary award or remedy information.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the respondent did not, at any time material to the claim, act in contravention of section 39 of the Equality Act 2010. The complaint described in the judgment as discrimination for a reason arising from disability was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was fairly dismissed and that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 39 Equality Act 2010
- Section 120 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.