Case 1305113/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Jonathan Brooks v Jaguar Land Rover Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305113/2024
- Decision date
- 20 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Chivers Representation
- Venue
- West Midlands
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jonathan Brooks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether the claimant was a disabled person at the relevant times by reason of anxiety and depression. It found that he was not disabled as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010.
Because the claimant was not found to be disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, the complaints of direct disability discrimination, unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons available only if requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of direct disability discrimination dismissed after the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability dismissed after the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments dismissed after the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 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.