Case 1308544/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Clarke v Smart Capital Technology Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1308544/2023
- Decision date
- 6 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coghlin KC
- Panel members
- Mr D Spencer, Mr P Tsouvallaris
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Clarke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that throughout the period from 2016 to 26 September 2023 inclusive the claimant was disabled by reason of ADHD and anxiety. It then dismissed the claimant's disability-related complaints under the Equality Act 2010: direct discrimination under s13, discrimination arising from disability under s15, failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss20-21, and alleged discriminatory constructive dismissal under s39. The written record gives only the dispositive conclusions and does not set out fuller reasons beyond those headings.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim, stating that the claimant resigned and was not dismissed. It further dismissed the common law breach of contract claim and the unlawful deduction of wages claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under s13 Equality Act 2010 was held not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The allegation of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability under s15 Equality Act 2010 was held not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The allegation of a failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss20-21 Equality Act 2010 was held not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The alleged discriminatory constructive dismissal under s39 Equality Act 2010 was held not well founded; the tribunal noted that the claimant resigned and was not dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claim for constructive unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed; the tribunal stated that the claimant resigned and was not dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The common law breach of contract claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s39 Equality Act 2010
- s13 Equality Act 2010
- s15 Equality Act 2010
- ss20-21 Equality Act 2010
- constructive unfair dismissal
- Employment Rights Act 1996
- common law
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.