Case 1806473/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Siddique v City of Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806473/2020
- Decision date
- 31 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Siddique
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing by CVP in Leeds on 27 August 2021 before Employment Judge Maidment, the tribunal considered the claimant's disability discrimination complaints against the City of Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council. The tribunal found that the claimant was not at any material time up to and including the termination of his employment on 1 July 2020 a disabled person by reason of anxiety, stress or depression.
Because the disability definition was not met, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination complaints. Those complaints were therefore struck out. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested.
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, at any material time up to and including 1 July 2020, a disabled person by reason of anxiety, stress or depression. His disability discrimination complaints were therefore struck out because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. | Struck out | 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.