Case 1309493/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person – and Mr Alistair Candlish to support For the v Mr Paul Clarke, consultant — 2022
- Case reference
- 1309493/2020
- Decision date
- 25 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean Members
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr S Woodall, Mr N Howard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person – and Mr Alistair Candlish to support For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting by CVP in Birmingham before Employment Judge Dean with Mr S Woodall and Mr N Howard, heard Ms Victoria Arndt’s complaints against UBI Limited. It dismissed her disability discrimination complaints brought under sections 13, 15, 19, 20, 21 and 26 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal also recorded that it had no jurisdiction to entertain complaints about acts occurring on or before 7 May 2020. In addition, the claimant’s complaint of unlawful detriment in breach of section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, said to relate to a health and safety complaint, did not succeed.
The claimant’s complaint of automatically unfair dismissal for having made a health and safety complaint was likewise dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaints pleaded under sections 13, 15, 19, 20, 21 and 26 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | Complaint of unlawful detriment in breach of section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996, said to arise from a health and safety complaint, was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of automatically unfair dismissal for having made a health and safety complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.