Case 1805193/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Bexton v William Lee Ltd HELD in Sheffield — 2021
- Case reference
- 1805193/2020
- Decision date
- 17 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain
- Panel members
- Mrs R Hodgkinson, Mr L Priestley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Bexton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that at all material times the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. It accepted that on or around 17 June 2020 the respondent treated him unfavourably for something arising in consequence of disability, but held that the respondent's section 15(1)(b) justification defence succeeded. The Equality Act complaint therefore failed.
Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal found that on 16 and 18 June 2020 the claimant brought to the attention of health and safety representatives, by reasonable means, circumstances connected with work which he reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health and safety. Because there were health and safety representatives at the workplace and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have raised the issues with them, the section 100(1)(c) complaint failed.
The tribunal also found that on 16 and 18 June 2020 the claimant made protected disclosures. However, his claim under section 103A that the respondent dismissed him on 23 July 2020 because of those disclosures was dismissed, and the separate unfair dismissal complaint under sections 94 and 98 was also dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint brought under sections 15 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010; the tribunal found the claimant was disabled within section 6, but the respondent's section 15(1)(b) justification defence succeeded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint under section 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 concerning health and safety matters; the tribunal held the claimant had raised the issues with health and safety representatives by reasonable means and that it was reasonably practicable to do so, so the complaint failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that on 16 and 18 June 2020 the claimant made protected disclosures, but his section 103A claim that he was dismissed on 23 July 2020 for making those disclosures failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | General unfair dismissal complaint under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.15(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 justification defence
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.94 and s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.