Case 2201874/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Sangh (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201874/2018
- Decision date
- 31 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mrs J Cameron, Mr M Reuby
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr P Sangh (counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London Central before Employment Judge E Burns with Mrs J Cameron and Mr M Reuby, gave a unanimous judgment on 31 October 2019. It recorded four liability outcomes arising from the claimant's dismissal and disability-related claims.
The claimant's claim under sections 20, 21 and 39(5) of the Equality Act 2010, alleging a failure to make reasonable adjustments, was dismissed. The separate disability discrimination claim under section 15 and section 39(2) of the Equality Act 2010, framed as discrimination arising from disability, was upheld.
The claimant also succeeded in the unfair dismissal claim. The wrongful dismissal claim failed. No monetary award or remedy figure is set out in the extracted judgment text provided here.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim under sections 20, 21 and 39(5) of the Equality Act 2010 for failure to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under section 15 and 39(2) of the Equality Act 2010 for discrimination arising from disability. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 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.