Case 1401095/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Anderson v Spotlight Sports Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401095/2024
- Decision date
- 27 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bradford Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Anderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that claim was not well-founded and therefore did not make any award on that claim.
On the disability issues, the tribunal found that Mr N Anderson was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 before 7 August 2023, even taking ADHD or depression into account. As a result, the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for the period before 7 August 2023 was also dismissed as not well-founded.
The tribunal then found that Mr Anderson was a disabled person from 7 August 2023 until 31 December 2023. However, the complaint that Spotlight Sports Group Limited failed to make reasonable adjustments to the redundancy consultation and selection process was still not well founded and was dismissed. No remedy was awarded because all claims failed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim dismissed as not well-founded under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint for the period before 7 August 2023 was dismissed after the tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 before that date, by reason of ADHD or depression. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint relating to the redundancy consultation and selection process was dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant was a disabled person from 7 August 2023 until 31 December 2023, but that complaint was still not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 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.