Case 1307678/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Marshall v Safety Technology International Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1307678/2019
- Decision date
- 3 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Marshall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Birmingham by CVP on 3 August 2020 before Employment Judge Miller, first decided that the claimant was not, as at 28 June 2019, a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of cataracts. That finding was central to the case and meant the claimant did not succeed on the disability status issue he needed for his claim.
The tribunal then dismissed the claimant’s claim of direct disability discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 and his claim of discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010. No monetary award was made and no separate remedy assessment is recorded in the written judgment.
The written record states that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days of sending of the decision. The judgment therefore records the outcomes and the disability-status finding, but gives no fuller explanation of the tribunal’s reasoning beyond those conclusions.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability claim under s.15 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 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.