Case 1400684/2024 · Employment Tribunal
F Levay (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400684/2024
- Decision date
- 1 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adrian Hogarth
- Venue
- Southampton ET
- Panel members
- Mrs Katharine Symonds, Mr Kevin Sleeth
Parties
1 namedClaimant
F Levay (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously found that Mr Ellis was disabled at all material times within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 as a result of ADHD. It expressly found that he was not disabled by reason of depression and/or anxiety.
It dismissed the unfair dismissal claim as not well-founded. It also dismissed the disability discrimination claims pleaded as discrimination arising because of disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment on the ground of disability.
The judgment records no monetary award or other remedy. The decision was sent to the parties on 1 September 2025 following the hearing at Southampton Employment Tribunal on 29, 30 and 31 July and 1 August 2025.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising because of disability; dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments; dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment on the ground of disability; dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.