Case 2402075/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Choudhury v British Gas Trading Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2402075/2019
- Decision date
- 3 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Choudhury
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment recorded determinations on disability status. The respondent accepted that, in respect of heart disease, the claimant had a disability at the relevant time within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The conditions addressed were ischemic heart disease, triple vessel disease, and left ventricular disfunction.
The claimant confirmed that he was not relying on hyperthyroidism as a separate disability. The tribunal found that, in respect of depression and affective disorder, the claimant had a disability at the relevant time within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
The judgment does not determine the merits of the pleaded discrimination, religion or belief discrimination, or unfair dismissal claims, and it does not make any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment only determined whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 for specified conditions; it did not determine liability for disability discrimination. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 of the 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.