Case 2201983/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Walker v Openreach Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2201983/2024
- Decision date
- 13 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery
- Panel members
- Ms S Campbell, Ms E Ali
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Walker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Walker was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 because of ADHD with symptoms of anxiety and depression. It also upheld his complaint of unfair dismissal. No written reasons are included in the extracted text; the judgment record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
On the discrimination claims, the tribunal upheld the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. It dismissed the complaint of direct disability discrimination as not well founded. The judgment record does not set out the detailed reasoning or any separate remedy figures for the individual claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability well-founded and successful. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of direct disability discrimination was found not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | 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.