Case 1804316/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Mr G Underwood, Personnel Management Services Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1804316/2019
- Decision date
- 26 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr S Noble, brought disability discrimination claims against MTL Advanced Limited. The case was heard in Sheffield on 24 February 2020 before Employment Judge Brain, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr G Underwood of Personnel Management Services Ltd.
The tribunal held that Mr Noble was not a disabled person, as defined by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, over the material period in issue, which the judgment identified as November 2018 to May 2019. On that basis, the disability discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the material period, identified as November 2018 to May 2019. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 Equality Act 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.