Case 1400751/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Dymond v Micheldever Tyre Services Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1400751/2019
- Decision date
- 8 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Matthews Representation
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Dymond
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr H Dymond was not, at the relevant times, a disabled person within the meaning of section 6(2) Equality Act 2010 by reason of depression, anxiety and low mood. That finding was dispositive of the disability-based claims before the tribunal.
The only discrimination claims identified in the judgment were discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 15, 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. Those claims were dismissed. The judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that Mr Dymond was not, at the relevant times, a disabled person within the meaning of section 6(2) Equality Act 2010 by reason of depression, anxiety and low mood. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the claims of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 15, 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.6(2) Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20-21 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.