Case 1305083/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Daymark Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1305083/2020
- Decision date
- 10 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Ms. S. Outwin, Mr. M. Khan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Birmingham via CVP between 6 and 10 December 2021, with Employment Judge Algazy QC sitting with panel members Ms. S. Outwin and Mr. M. Khan. The claimant, Hayley Warner, appeared in person and the respondent, Daymark Limited, was represented by Mr M. Williams of counsel.
The tribunal unanimously found that the claims were not well founded and dismissed them. The claims expressly listed in the judgment were discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, indirect discrimination related to disability under section 19, and victimisation under section 27.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment. The extracted text states only the dismissal outcome and does not record any separate remedy findings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 Equality Act 2010: discrimination arising from disability. Dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 19 Equality Act 2010: indirect discrimination related to disability. Dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Section 27 Equality Act 2010. Dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Section 15 Equality Act 2010
- Section 19 Equality Act 2010
- Section 27 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.