Case 2301484/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Ross (Counsel) For the v Mr B Gray (Counsel — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301484/2021
- Decision date
- 28 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Ross (Counsel) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at London South on 28 February 2023 held that the claimant was not disabled in accordance with s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. That finding was made at an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Webster, with Mr R Ross KC appearing for the claimant and Mr B Gray KC for the respondent.
Because the claimant was found not to be disabled, the tribunal said the claimant’s application to amend the claim was not considered, as it had become academic. The judgment does not set out the amendment sought.
The tribunal then dismissed the claimant’s claims on the basis that they were all conditional on the claimant being disabled. No compensation or other monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | At this open preliminary hearing the tribunal held that the claimant was not disabled within s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. The claimant’s application to amend the claim was not considered because it was academic after that finding. The tribunal said the claimant’s claims were all dismissed because they were all conditional on the claimant being disabled. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.