Case 1405194/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405194/2023
- Decision date
- 25 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 11 April 2024, Employment Judge Smail found that Mr C. Apuhin was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at any time relevant to the proceedings. On that basis, the claimant's Equality Act claims were dismissed, including the claims identified in the list of issues at paragraphs 6 to 9.
The respondent withdrew its applications for a deposit order because the claimant was impecunious. The claimant's application to amend dated 1 April 2024 was dismissed, save that he was permitted to pursue automatic unfair dismissal under s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996 and detriment claims under s.44(1)(c) ERA 1996 on the same facts as the protected disclosure claims then pleaded at paragraphs 3 to 5 of the list of issues.
The judgment records that full oral reasons were given at the hearing. No monetary remedy was awarded in this preliminary hearing judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at any time relevant to the proceedings, and the Equality Act claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Equality Act 2010 definition of disability
- s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.44(1)(c) ERA 1996
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.