Case 2300885/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Dominic Manser v Orange Property Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300885/2023
- Decision date
- 22 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mensah Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Dominic Manser
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on whether Mr Dominic Manser was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010. There was no dispute that he had a TIA on 7 August 2022. The tribunal focused on whether he had a physical or mental impairment with a substantial adverse effect that was long-term, and whether any treatment or measures meant the long-term test was met. The tribunal admitted a medical letter dated 24 November 2023 and heard evidence from the claimant, his partner's statement, and Dr Lever.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found the claimant had not shown that he was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of the TIA or symptoms said to flow from it. No merits findings were made on any substantive discrimination claim in this record. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1, paragraph 2 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1, paragraph 5 Equality Act 2010
- Secretary of State's Guidance on Matters Related to the Statutory Definition of Disability
- Sullivan v Bury Street Capital
- Boyle
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.