Case 1404865/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Harding v Marks and Spencer plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404865/2020
- Decision date
- 19 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Matthews Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Harding
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Mr Harding brought claims of unfair dismissal against Marks and Spencer PLC. It also records disability discrimination claims, including discrimination arising from disability under sections 15 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 and failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20, 21 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal dismissed all claims made by Mr Harding in the proceedings. Reasons were given orally, and the written judgment states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by a party within 14 days of the decision being sent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim described as discrimination arising from disability under sections 15 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim described as discrimination because of disability by reference to sections 20 and 21, duty to make adjustments and failure to comply with duty, and section 39 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- sections 15 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 39 of the 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.