Case 1404287/2023 · Employment Tribunal
M. Liljeblad v Bluefruit Software Limited and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404287/2023
- Decision date
- 30 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
Parties
4 namedClaimant
M. Liljeblad
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing on 24 October 2023 before Employment Judge G. King, the claimant’s victimisation claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010 against the First, Second and Third Respondents was dismissed by way of withdrawal. The judgment records no liability finding on that claim and no remedy.
The claims against the Second and Third Respondents for direct discrimination in relation to disability under s.13, discrimination arising from disability under s.15, indirect disability discrimination under s.19, failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20 and 22, and harassment under s.26 were struck out. The tribunal held that each of those claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment. The written record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010; dismissed by way of withdrawal against the First, Second and Third Respondents. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination in relation to disability under s.13 Equality Act 2010 against the Second and Third Respondents; found to have no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 against the Second and Third Respondents; found to have no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect discrimination in relation to disability under s.19 Equality Act 2010 against the Second and Third Respondents; found to have no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20 and 22 Equality Act 2010 against the Second and Third Respondents; found to have no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment under s.26 Equality Act 2010 against the Second and Third Respondents; found to have no reasonable prospect of success. |
Legal tests applied
7 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20 and 22 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 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.