Case 2206595/2020 · Employment Tribunal
M and v Home office SITTING AT: London Central — 2020
- Case reference
- 2206595/2020
- Decision date
- 21 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Smart
- Panel members
- Ms J Marshall, Mr R Pell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M and
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant was disabled, with dyslexia, dyspraxia and psychotic depression, within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at all relevant dates: 16 June 2020, 10 July 2020 and 21 December 2020. It also found that the Home Office had knowledge of disability for the purposes of the section 15 and sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The claim for direct age discrimination was withdrawn during submissions on 18 January 2024 and dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim for direct disability discrimination was withdrawn during submissions on 18 January 2024 and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim for a failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was found not well founded because, although the Home Office had knowledge of disability, it did not have knowledge of disadvantage for the purpose of the adjustments claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 for unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
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.
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.