Case 1601955/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Loftus v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs Heard: by video — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601955/2019
- Decision date
- 8 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins
- Panel members
- Mrs A Burge, Mr B Roberts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Loftus
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by video on 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 March 2021 before Employment Judge S Jenkins with lay members Mrs A Burge and Mr B Roberts. The claimant, Mr D Loftus, was represented by himself and HM Revenue and Customs was represented by counsel, Ms J Williams.
The written judgment records that the claimant's claims of direct discrimination on the ground of disability, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments all failed and were dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the written decision.
The document states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The extracted written record therefore contains the outcome only, and no further factual findings or legal reasoning are set out in the text supplied here.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination on the ground of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.