Case 2401655/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Downey v Custom Glass Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401655/2021
- Decision date
- 3 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Members
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mr M Gelling, Mr J Murdie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Downey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim even though it was presented outside the statutory time limit, because it had been presented within such period as was just and equitable. It found that Mr R Downey was disabled, with anxiety and depression as well as Crohn's disease.
The claim concerned disability discrimination by Custom Glass Ltd. One complaint, alleging discrimination arising from disability in relation to the respondent's failure to respond to requests for updates, was struck out by consent because it was not actively pursued. The tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing and did not provide written reasons unless requested.
On the remaining allegations, the tribunal found that the respondent did not discriminate against the claimant arising from either disability and did not breach the duty to make reasonable adjustments. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 | The complaint that the respondent discriminated against the claimant arising from his disabilities by failing to respond to his request for updates was struck out by consent because it was not actively pursued. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | In the other alleged respects, the tribunal found that the respondent did not discriminate against the claimant arising from either disability. The tribunal also found no breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | 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.