Case 2220683/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Alan Blacker v Bar Standards Board — 2024
- Case reference
- 2220683/2024
- Decision date
- 13 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Alan Blacker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant challenged two decisions of the respondent's Independent Decision-making Body concerning admission to an Inn of Court. He alleged direct disability discrimination, indirect disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to those decisions.
The tribunal held that the acts complained of were the respondent's decisions and that those decisions could be subject to an appeal in the High Court under the relevant statutory route. It therefore found that s.120(7) of the Equality Act 2010 applied, meaning the employment tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
All of the claimant's complaints were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success under rule 37(1)(a). No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant alleged direct disability discrimination, indirect disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal determined under s.120(7) Equality Act 2010 that it had no jurisdiction and struck out all complaints under rule 37(1)(a). | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.120(7) Equality Act 2010
- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- s.53 Equality Act 2010
- s.54 Equality Act 2010
- s.24 Crime and Courts Act 2013
- Michalak v General Medical Council [2017] UKSC 71
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.