Case 2302450/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Menaa v Ballymore Asset Management Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302450/2021
- Decision date
- 25 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A. Beale Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Menaa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing on 12 September 2023 before Employment Judge A. Beale, the Tribunal dealt only with the Claimant's applications to amend. It allowed amendments to plead type 2 diabetes as a disability in relation to the complaints listed at paragraphs 4.1.1 to 4.1.9 of the List of Issues, and it also allowed amendments adding complaints of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments concerning the Respondent's alleged inclusion of disability-related absences when applying the redundancy selection matrix.
The Tribunal rejected the proposed amendments so far as they concerned direct disability discrimination, section 15 Equality Act 2010 discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments about the allocation to night shifts, and it also rejected a proposed amendment to add direct age discrimination. The written record records the amendment decision only; it does not contain merits findings or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Amendment allowed to plead type 2 diabetes as a disability in relation to the complaints at paragraphs 4.1.1 to 4.1.9 of the List of Issues, and to add section 15 Equality Act 2010 and reasonable adjustments complaints about the alleged inclusion of disability-related absences in the redundancy selection matrix. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Amendment rejected so far as it sought to add direct disability discrimination, section 15 Equality Act 2010 discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments about the decision to allocate the Claimant to night shifts. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | Amendment rejected to include a complaint of direct age discrimination. | Dismissed | Age | — |
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.