Case 2400941/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Goulbourn v Selwyns Travel Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400941/2020
- Decision date
- 3 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Goulbourn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Liverpool on 7 October 2021, Employment Judge Johnson determined a preliminary issue under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that Mr Goulbourn was disabled at the relevant time by reason of ulnar nerve entrapment/cubital tunnel syndrome.
The tribunal also found that he was not disabled at the material time by reason of the other conditions he had referred to at the preliminary hearing, because he had decided not to apply to amend his claim to include those conditions as alleged disabilities. The judgment was limited to disability status and did not decide the merits of the underlying discrimination complaints or any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found that the claimant was disabled at the relevant time by reason of ulnar nerve entrapment/cubital tunnel syndrome, and also found that he was not disabled at the material time by reason of the other conditions he had referred to at the preliminary hearing because he had not applied to amend his claim to include them as alleged disabilities. The judgment did not determine liability on the underlying discrimination complaints or any remedy. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.