Case 1601482/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Male v Airbus Operations Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601482/2022
- Decision date
- 21 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Russell
- Panel members
- Mr P Charles, Mrs R Hartwell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Male
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal at Mold on 7, 8 and 9 August 2023, before Employment Judge R Russell with Mr P Charles and Mrs R Hartwell, allowed the Claimant to amend his claim to include a complaint of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. It then considered the discrimination complaints advanced, namely direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The Tribunal held that those discrimination complaints had been presented outside the relevant time limit. It decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time to permit them to proceed, so it lacked jurisdiction to hear them and dismissed those complaints.
The victimisation complaint was also considered and failed on its merits. The judgment states that the claim was dismissed in its entirety. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination complaint was presented outside the relevant time limit; the Tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect discrimination complaint was presented outside the relevant time limit; the Tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was added by amendment, but was found to be out of time and dismissed because the Tribunal would not extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint was presented outside the relevant time limit; the Tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation complaint failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.