Case 1802441/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Willis v NRC Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802441/2021
- Decision date
- 9 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mrs S Robinson, Mr D Dorman-Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Willis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Leeds on 8 February 2022, Employment Judge Cox sat with lay members Mrs S Robinson and Mr D Dorman-Smith. Mr D Willis appeared in person and NRC Services Ltd was represented by its Managing Director, Mr Lyne.
The tribunal’s judgment records that the claims under the Equality Act 2010 failed and were dismissed. The extracted text does not set out the underlying factual findings or identify the particular Equality Act complaints beyond the disability discrimination listing for the case.
The judgment also records that the claim for a bonus payment failed and was dismissed. No separate remedy was awarded, and no monetary figures are recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claims under the Equality Act 2010 fail and are dismissed. The extracted text does not specify the exact Equality Act cause(s) beyond the disability discrimination listing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | The judgment records a separate claim for a bonus payment, which failed and was dismissed. The extracted text does not specify the legal basis of the bonus claim. | 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.