Case 1805173/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Richard Temple v Leeds City Council At a Preliminary Hearing — 2019
- Case reference
- 1805173/2018
- Decision date
- 12 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Richard Temple
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 12 February 2019, Employment Judge Lancaster found that Richard Temple was at all material times from 8 January 2015 to December 2017/January 2018 a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal granted the claimant's application to amend the description of his diagnosed disabling conditions in the ET1 by adding the words 'and adjustment disorder'. The alternative application to add a claim arising from a past disability under section 6(4) of the Equality Act 2010 was not pursued.
The tribunal then considered the claimant's discrimination claims on a preliminary basis. It held that the failure to make reasonable adjustments claim did not have little reasonable prospect of success, so that claim was allowed to proceed. It also held that the section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim had little reasonable prospect of success, and that claim was made subject to a separate deposit order.
This was a preliminary hearing only and the judgment does not record any final liability findings or any monetary award. The decision is limited to disability status, amendment of the pleaded diagnosis, and the prospects assessment for the reasonable adjustments and section 15 claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing decision only. The tribunal held that the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments did not have little reasonable prospect of success. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing decision only. The tribunal held that the claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 had little reasonable prospect of success and was subject to a separate deposit order. | Other | 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.