Case 1404023/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Craig Allen v Mitie Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1404023/2022
- Decision date
- 20 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Lumby REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Craig Allen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing to decide whether the claimant was a disabled person at the material times. The claimant relied on depression. The relevant dates were 24 August 2022, when he was dismissed, and 19 December 2022, when his appeal was rejected.
The tribunal found that the claimant's depression began on 8 October 2021 and amounted to a mental impairment. It accepted that the depression affected normal day-to-day activities, including socialising, concentration, tolerance of others, mountain biking and barbeques, and that the effect was more than minor or trivial.
On the long-term condition, the tribunal found that at 24 August 2022 the impairment was likely to continue beyond 8 October 2022, and that by 19 December 2022 it had in fact continued for more than 12 months. It therefore found that all four conditions for disability were satisfied and that the claimant was disabled by reason of depression at the relevant times. The disability discrimination and victimisation complaints were permitted to proceed, but their merits were not decided in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found the claimant was a disabled person at the relevant times because of depression, so the complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments could proceed; the merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Preliminary issue only. The judgment records that the victimisation complaint could proceed following the finding that the claimant was disabled; the merits of victimisation were not determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office four conditions
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council
- 2011 Guidance on the definition of 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.