Case 1600350/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. M. Roberts v Conwy County Borough Council HELD BY: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600350/2019
- Decision date
- 27 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Ms. M. Roberts, Ms. L. Thomas
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. M. Roberts
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that Conwy County Borough Council dismissed Mr. M. Roberts fairly on 23 October 2018 for a reason related to capability by reference to health. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the disability discrimination claims. It found that the respondent had not failed to make reasonable adjustments under ss. 20-21 Equality Act 2010, and it rejected the s.15 claim because the respondent showed that the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and no written reasons were provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal on 23 October 2018 was fair and for a reason related to capability by reference to health. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss. 20-21 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under s.15 Equality Act 2010 that the respondent treated the claimant unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- ss. 20-21 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
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.