Case 2304839/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Singh v Asda Stores Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304839/2019
- Decision date
- 6 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Representation
- Venue
- Croydon via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered only whether the claimant was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, by reference to allegations said to cover 7 June 2019 and 13 June 2019 after an accident at work in which an ankle fracture was eventually diagnosed.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had identified very limited effects on normal day-to-day activities. It noted evidence that he could not drive on 30 May 2019 and could not attend one work meeting at 5am on 7 June 2019, but found there was no other evidence of day-to-day tasks he could not do or could only do with difficulty.
The Tribunal found that the medical certificates principally recorded ankle injury, with stress either recorded as a functional effect or later handwritten on a certificate. GP notes were not produced. It found the claimant had not discharged the burden of showing on the balance of probabilities that he was disabled at the relevant time, and that his Equality Act claims therefore failed and were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The preliminary hearing determined whether the claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 by reference to stress and/or sleep disorder in the first claim. The Tribunal found he had not established disability at the relevant time, so his Equality Act claims failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office 1999 ICR 302 EAT
- Equality Act 2010 Guidance paragraph C4
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.