Case 1400719/2020 · Employment Tribunal

in person For the v Mr Chaudhury, Solicitor — 2021

Case reference: 1400719/2020
Decision date: 16 July 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Richardson Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

in person For the

Respondent

Mr Chaudhury, Solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This judgment determined a preliminary issue in Mr I Bugden's case against Royal Mail Group Limited. The tribunal held that the impairments of diverticular disease, raised liver enzymes, lung issues and heart problems did not amount to disabilities within s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time.

The tribunal also recorded that the impairment of bladder issues includes narrowing of the urethra, and that gallstones were no longer relied upon by the claimant. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record contains no merits findings or monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Preliminary disability-status ruling only. The tribunal held that diverticular disease, raised liver enzymes, lung issues and heart problems did not amount to disabilities within s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time. It also recorded that the bladder issues impairment includes narrowing of the urethra, and that gallstones were no longer relied upon by the claimant.	Other	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.