Case 1400009/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Wheaton (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400009/2022
- Decision date
- 14 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Dated
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Wheaton (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr A D C Webber was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at times material to the claim. It found that he had a mental impairment, with the formal diagnosis of mild dyslexia or a specific learning difficulty that may be regarded as showing dyspraxic features.
The written record is confined to that disability-status finding. It does not record any remedy or any substantive determination of liability on the wider discrimination or breach of contract claims. The decision was given orally at the hearing on 14 February 2023, and the written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal held that the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the material times because of a mental impairment, diagnosed as mild dyslexia or a specific learning difficulty that may be regarded as showing dyspraxic features. No substantive liability or remedy was recorded in the written judgment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.