Case 2302720/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Mr D Dyal — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302720/2018
- Decision date
- 28 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish Members
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr M O’Connor, Mr P Adkin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at London South Employment Tribunal on 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 28 October 2019 before Employment Judge Hyams-Parish sitting with Mr M O’Connor and Mr P Adkin. In the written judgment record, the claimant, Ms V Vsevolozhsky, was unrepresented and the respondent was Ernst & Young Services Ltd.
The judgment states that the claim under s.21 Equality Act 2010 for failure to make reasonable adjustments was not well founded and was dismissed. The claim under s.15 Equality Act 2010 for unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability was also not well founded and dismissed.
The tribunal further dismissed the victimisation claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010 and the wrongful dismissal claim, each as not well founded. The written record does not set out the tribunal’s reasons because it states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
No monetary award is recorded in the written decision extract.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim under s.21 Equality Act 2010 (failure to make reasonable adjustments); dismissed as not well founded. The written record says reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in this extract. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under s.15 Equality Act 2010 (unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability); dismissed as not well founded. The written record says reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in this extract. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010; dismissed as not well founded. The written record says reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in this extract. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim for wrongful dismissal; dismissed as not well founded. The written record says reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in this extract. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.