Case 2305774/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Backer v Magdalene Limited Sharon Smith Wendi Cochrane Steve Harlowe — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305774/2021
- Decision date
- 1 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harrington Appearances
- Venue
- Remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Backer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing on 1 November 2022 before Employment Judge Harrington, the tribunal found that at all relevant times Mr A Backer was not disabled within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010. On that basis, the Claimant’s disability discrimination claims were found not well founded and were dismissed.
The written judgment records that all remaining claims were dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant. No monetary award is recorded. The note to the decision states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that at all relevant times the Claimant was not disabled as defined by s.6 Equality Act 2010, so the disability discrimination claims were not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The written judgment states that all remaining claims were dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant; the individual withdrawn claims are not itemised in the written extract. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment states that all remaining claims were dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant; the individual withdrawn claims are not itemised in the written extract. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.6 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.
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.