Case 2402274/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Hajdukiewicz v Blackpool Transport Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402274/2023
- Decision date
- 7 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson MEMBERS
- Panel members
- Ms C Nield, Mr S Moules
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Hajdukiewicz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Manchester on 30 and 31 October and 1 November 2024 before Employment Judge Johnson, with lay members Ms C Nield and Mr S Moules. It recorded that the claimant, Mr D Hajdukiewicz, was unrepresented and the respondent, Blackpool Transport Services Limited, was represented by counsel.
The written judgment states only the outcome. The complaint of direct discrimination on grounds of disability contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010 was found not well founded and therefore unsuccessful. The complaint of discrimination arising from disability contrary to section 15 Equality Act 2010 was also found not well founded and therefore unsuccessful.
No monetary remedy is recorded in the judgment extract, and no award is stated. The document notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, but written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal note.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of direct discrimination on grounds of disability under section 13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 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.