Case 2401698/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Toth v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2401698/2022
- Decision date
- 16 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Toth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing considered whether the claimant was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the agreed relevant period of 13 May 2021 to 26 September 2021. The Tribunal accepted that he had physical impairments of tendonitis in the wrist, polyarthritis in the shoulder and cervicalgia in the neck, and found his oral evidence credible and to some extent supported by historical medical records.
The Tribunal found that the impairments cumulatively had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, including lifting heavy objects and, when in pain, putting on clothing, carrying shopping, opening jars and applying painkiller gel without assistance. It found that the claimant used medication and self-management or avoidance strategies, but that adverse effects remained and would be more regular and worse without those measures.
The Tribunal found the effects were long-term, having lasted at least 12 months and being likely to recur. Separately, it dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant lacked the two years' continuity of employment required for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | At this preliminary hearing the Tribunal decided only the preliminary issue that the claimant was disabled under section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period; the substantive disability discrimination complaints were not determined and were listed for further case management. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant was not employed for two years and did not have sufficient continuity of employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Equality Act (Disability) Regulations 2010
- Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability
- McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College
- Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd
- Millar v ICR
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- Appendix 1 to the EHRC Employment Code
- section 212(1) Equality Act 2010
- Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
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.