Case 1601328/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. E. Ali v Secretary of State for Justice HELD by: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601328/2020
- Decision date
- 5 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. E. Ali
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan on 4 January 2021. The issue determined was whether Mr. E. Ali was a disabled person for the purposes of his disability discrimination claims against the Secretary of State for Justice.
The tribunal held that he was disabled by virtue of chronic pain. It found that this amounted to a physical or mental impairment with a long-term substantial adverse effect on his day-to-day activities at all material times.
The record does not include any final merits decision on the underlying discrimination claims or any monetary award. It is a preliminary issue determination only, and the written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that the claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of his disability discrimination claims by reason of chronic pain, described as a physical or mental impairment having a long-term substantial adverse effect on his day-to-day activities at all material times. | Upheld | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.