Case 1305011/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Baden v Coventry City Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 1305011/2018
- Decision date
- 6 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Meichen
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs DP Hill, Mr NJ Howard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Baden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe unanimous judgment of Employment Judge Meichen, sitting with Mrs DP Hill and Mr NJ Howard, was that Mr Baden's claims of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and victimisation against Coventry City Council were not well founded and were dismissed.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. On the face of this record, no detailed findings of fact or legal reasoning are set out beyond the dismissal of each claim.
The tribunal also recorded that there was insufficient time to hear the respondent's application for costs, and that any appropriate orders for that application would be issued separately.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the claimant's direct disability discrimination claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the claimant's discrimination arising from disability claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal dismissed the claimant's victimisation claim. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.