Case 1304996/2024 · Employment Tribunal
SUKVINDER SINGH JOHAL v Mitie Security Preliminary Hearing — 2025
- Case reference
- 1304996/2024
- Decision date
- 27 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCluggage Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
SUKVINDER SINGH JOHAL
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge McCluggage to decide whether Sukvinder Singh Johal was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material times, identified as December 2023 to 19 March 2024. The claimant had worked as a Security Officer for Mitie Security from 10 October 2012 and said that he was disabled by PTSD. The tribunal approached the issue as one of disability status only, against the background that the substantive disability discrimination claims would be listed for the final hearing if the claimant succeeded on disability.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal decided whether the claimant was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material times (December 2023 to 19 March 2024) and held that he was not. The substantive disability discrimination and reasonable-adjustment claims were therefore not determined at this hearing and were listed for the final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 6 and Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle
- Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark
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.