Case 1801061/2020 · Employment Tribunal

AB v Minster Law Ltd — 2020

Case reference: 1801061/2020
Decision date: 16 October 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Wade
Panel members: Mr W Roberts, Mrs L Hill

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Respondent

Minster Law Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal dismissed AB's complaints that Minster Law Ltd discriminated against him because of disability, harassed him, or failed to make reasonable adjustments during a short employment from 18 December 2019 to 27 January 2020. It found he had cerebral palsy and short-term memory impairment, and that the respondent knew this from recruitment and from the first day of work. On 18 December Ms Oldridge and Ms Hodsdon met him, agreed to give instructions in writing, produced bespoke prompts and documents, and later arranged a DSE assessment and occupational health referral.

On the harassment complaint, the tribunal rejected AB's evidence that Ms Oldridge said it was a "pain in the arse" helping him. It accepted that she had said she did not know how to help if she did not know what he was struggling with, and found that remark was related to his disability but was not intended to, and did not, create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The tribunal relied on the contemporaneous documents and the respondent witnesses, and preferred their account of the disputed conversations and support given.

The reasonable-adjustments complaints also failed. The tribunal held that written communications were already being used, and that there was no unreasonable failure in relation to the two days over Christmas and New Year when neither manager was present because the claimant did not establish any actual problem needing help then and other colleagues were nearby. It also rejected the added complaint about flexible start and finish times for a swimming course, finding the respondent had not been told about that prescribed treatment before the claimant resigned and that the adjustment would likely have been accommodated if he had stayed. The section 15 complaint failed because the occupational health appointment was arranged promptly and postponed only after the claimant's bicycle accident, and the tribunal found the January meetings and request that he check his work were supportive rather than unfavourable treatment. No award was made because all complaints were dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Harassment	The tribunal rejected the allegation that Ms Oldridge said it was a "pain in the arse" having to help the claimant. It accepted she said she did not know how to help him if she did not know what he was struggling with, but held that this was not harassment.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Reasonable adjustments claim about the claimant's memory impairment and the way instructions and support were given. The tribunal held that relevant communications and training were already being put in writing and that there was no failure in relation to the two days over Christmas and New Year when neither manager was present.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Amended reasonable adjustments claim about flexible start and finish times to permit a swimming course recommended by the claimant's doctor. The tribunal found the respondent had not been told about that prescribed treatment before the claimant resigned and said the adjustment would likely have been accommodated if he had stayed.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Section 15 claim alleging unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, including delay to the occupational health assessment and criticism of the claimant's work. The tribunal found the occupational health appointment was arranged promptly and delayed only by the claimant's bicycle accident, and that the January meetings were supportive rather than unfavourable treatment.	Dismissed	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.