Case 1600540/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600540/2019
- Decision date
- 21 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a closed telephone preliminary hearing on 21 July 2020 before Employment Judge P Britton sitting alone, the tribunal recorded that the claims for unfair dismissal and indirect discrimination were dismissed upon withdrawal. No substantive liability or remedy decision was made on those claims.
The remaining claims were allowed to proceed to a five-day hearing: direct discrimination including by perception under s13 Equality Act 2010, unfavourable treatment under s15, failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss20-22, and breach of contract. The respondent had stated that it did not accept that the claimant was disabled, and the parties agreed that determination of disability should be left to the main hearing, including the claimant's fallback case based on disability by perception. The tribunal listed the main hearing for 12 July 2021 and noted that the claimant's schedule of loss sought over £600,000.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that this claim was dismissed upon withdrawal at the closed preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Indirect discrimination claim dismissed upon withdrawal at the closed preliminary hearing; the withdrawal wording does not specify the protected characteristic, but the case context is disability discrimination. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
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.