Case 2302571/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Zak Mendham v Gillingham Golf Club Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302571/2023
- Decision date
- 23 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Croydon
- Panel members
- Elizabeth Whitlam, Sheik Khan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Zak Mendham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Mendham's claims against Gillingham Golf Club Limited were heard at Croydon on 3, 4 and 5 July 2024 by Employment Judge Liz Ord sitting with Tribunal Members Elizabeth Whitlam and Sheik Khan. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal dismissed the complaint of direct disability discrimination, stating that it was not well-founded. It found that the complaint of discrimination arising from disability was well-founded and succeeded.
The tribunal also found the complaint of harassment related to disability well-founded on all three pleaded counts and said that it succeeded. No remedy figure is recorded in the written judgment provided.
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 | Complaint of direct disability discrimination; the judgment says it was not well-founded and is dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability; the judgment says it was well-founded and succeeds. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to disability; the judgment says it was well-founded on all three pleaded counts and succeeds. | Upheld | 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.