Case 2214862/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Ioannou v Octopus Capital Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2214862/2023
- Decision date
- 9 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Ioannou
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 23 April 2024 before Employment Judge H J Randall at London Central, the tribunal considered whether Mr J Ioannou was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held that he was disabled at the relevant times because of obsessive compulsive disorder.
On that basis, the complaints of direct disability discrimination, harassment, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were allowed to proceed. The judgment does not determine the merits of those complaints and records no monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing found the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of obsessive compulsive disorder. The listed complaints of direct disability discrimination, harassment, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were allowed to proceed. No merits decision was made on those complaints. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.