Case 1600885/2020 · Employment Tribunal

MR THAKERAR (COUNSEL) FOR THE v Respondent — 2021

Case reference: 1600885/2020
Decision date: 1 April 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Panel members: Mrs M Walters, Mr S Head

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

MR THAKERAR (COUNSEL) FOR THE

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal, sitting remotely on 8 to 12 February 2021, upheld Mrs Grant-Ryder's unfair dismissal claim against the Governing Body of the Maelor School. It also upheld her disability discrimination claim that the first respondent dismissed her for something arising from her disability under section 39(2)(c) of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal rejected other allegations under the disability heading, including the complaint about the absence management procedure and the related indirect discrimination point, as well as complaints about the working environment, moving her around classrooms and removing her subject from the curriculum.

The reasonable adjustments claim succeeded in relation to the use of aerosols in classrooms. The tribunal found that the first respondent failed to take reasonable steps to avoid the disadvantage caused by that physical feature and held that this complaint was a continuing act brought in time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It did not uphold the related complaint about application of the Repetitive Absence Formula or about when the claimant was removed from the relevant classrooms and those rooms were renovated.

None of the claims against Wrexham County Borough Council were upheld. The judgment was on liability only, and the tribunal recorded that written reasons would follow together with a separate case management order for the remedy hearing.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

This 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 unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent succeeded. The judgment records liability only and says written reasons and a separate remedy hearing were to follow.	Upheld	—	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal upheld the complaint that the first respondent dismissed the claimant for something arising from her disability under section 39(2)(c) of the Equality Act 2010. It rejected other allegations pleaded under the same heading, including the safe working environment, classroom movement and subject-removal complaints.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal did not find a contravention in the absence management procedure and rejected the related indirect discrimination complaint.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The reasonable adjustments complaint about the use of aerosols in classrooms succeeded. The tribunal held the issue was a continuing act and that the claim was in time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The related complaint about the Repetitive Absence Formula and the timing of removal from classrooms and renovation was not upheld.	Upheld	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.