Case 1600278/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Perry v Tata Steel UK Limited and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600278/2021
- Decision date
- 29 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Perry
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a video hearing on 24 November 2021, Employment Judge S Jenkins determined preliminary status issues only. The claimant, Mr M Perry, was found to be a "contract worker" who worked for Tata Steel UK Limited, a "principal", within section 41 of the Equality Act 2010, so he was entitled to pursue disability discrimination claims against Tata Steel UK Limited.
The tribunal also found that Mr Perry was "employed" by Acorn Global Recruitment Limited within sections 83(2)(a) and (4) of the Equality Act 2010, so he was entitled to pursue disability discrimination claims against Acorn Global Recruitment Limited. The record states that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No merits liability or remedy was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary status ruling only: the tribunal held the claimant was a contract worker in relation to Tata Steel UK Limited, a principal, within section 41 of the Equality Act 2010, so he could pursue disability discrimination claims against Tata Steel UK Limited. No merits decision was made. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary status ruling only: the tribunal held the claimant was employed by Acorn Global Recruitment Limited within sections 83(2)(a) and (4) of the Equality Act 2010, so he could pursue disability discrimination claims against Acorn Global Recruitment Limited. No merits decision was made. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 41 Equality Act 2010
- sections 83(2)(a) and (4) 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.