Case 2301894/2024 · Employment Tribunal
A Boyd v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301894/2024
- Decision date
- 23 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Boyd
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that A Boyd brought complaints against the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. The hearing took place at London South Employment Tribunal on 20, 21, 22 and 23 October 2025 before Employment Judge Burge, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel.
The Tribunal held that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was well-founded and succeeded. It also held that the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was well-founded and succeeded.
The Tribunal held that the complaint of harassment related to disability was not well-founded and dismissed that complaint. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal stated that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was well-founded and succeeded. No remedy amount was stated. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal stated that the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was well-founded and succeeded. No remedy amount was stated. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal stated that the complaint of harassment related to disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.