Case 1303788/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A DAVIS v Bachy Solentanche Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1303788/2023
- Decision date
- 25 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MANLEY Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A DAVIS
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 15 July 2024, Employment Judge Manley considered whether Mr A Davis was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, with the disability issue said to arise from depression and arthritis in his shoulder. The tribunal held that he was disabled from 1 February 2023 to 9 March 2023 by virtue of depression and anxiety, but that he was not disabled during the material time by virtue of his shoulder.
The tribunal also considered the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's disability discrimination claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, or alternatively for a deposit order under rule 39. The judgment records that the claimant's disability discrimination claim was struck out because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing found the claimant was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 from 1/02/23 to 9/03/23 by depression and anxiety, but not disabled during the material time by his shoulder. The disability discrimination claim was then struck out under rule 37 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | 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.