Case 1601153/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Morgan v Transport for Wales Rail Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601153/2021
- Decision date
- 30 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Morgan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge C Sharp, sitting alone at Cardiff by CVP, held that Mr P Morgan was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of hearing loss and tinnitus. The judgment records that the hearing took place on 27 May 2022 and that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal dismissed Mr Morgan's claims of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The stated reason was that those claims all related to impairments for which he had not been found to be disabled for the purposes of the Act at the relevant time, so the claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it related to impairments for which the Claimant had not been found to be disabled at the relevant time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it related to impairments for which the Claimant had not been found to be disabled at the relevant time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it related to impairments for which the Claimant had not been found to be disabled at the relevant time. | Dismissed | 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.