Case 1405768/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Daniel Hopkins v Peter Ball & Co Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1405768/2020
- Decision date
- 31 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley
- Panel members
- Ms A Sinclair, Mr K Ghotbi-Ravandi
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Daniel Hopkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the liability hearing on 12, 13 and 14 May 2023, the tribunal found that Mr Daniel Hopkins was unfairly dismissed by Peter Ball & Co Limited. It held that the unfair dismissal claim was well founded and applied a 40% Polkey deduction to reflect the prospect that he would have been dismissed even if a fair procedure had been followed.
The tribunal dismissed the direct discrimination claims as not well founded. It also found that the remaining claims of discrimination arising from disability were not well founded and were dismissed.
However, the tribunal upheld the claims of discrimination arising from disability in relation to two specific matters: the respondent's decision not to permit the claimant to return to his contractual role in January 2020 and the dismissal in August 2020. The tribunal stated that the dismissal was therefore discriminatory. Remedy was not determined in this judgment; the issue was listed for a separate remedy hearing on 15 September 2023.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and made a 40% Polkey deduction to reflect the prospect of dismissal after a fair procedure. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The direct discrimination claims were found not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claims of discrimination arising from disability were well founded in relation to the respondent's decision not to permit the claimant to return to his contractual role in January 2020 and to dismiss him in August 2020; the judgment also records that the remaining such claims were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey deduction
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.