Case 2402370/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Whalley v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402370/2021
- Decision date
- 18 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms A Gilchrist, Mr B J McCaughey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Whalley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr N Whalley, brought complaints of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, direct disability discrimination, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and a Working Time Regulations 1998 annual leave complaint, against Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council. The respondent conceded that the claimant was a disabled person at all relevant times by reason of calcium deposits causing a musculo-skeletal condition. The hearing took place at Manchester before Employment Judge McDonald sitting with Ms A Gilchrist and Mr B J McCaughey over 4-7 March 2024, with deliberations in chambers on 28 May 2024.
The Tribunal granted an amendment during the hearing to add a further direct disability discrimination complaint concerning the Ian Leach Role, applying Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore and Vaughan v Modality Partnership and balancing hardship and injustice. The annual leave complaint under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal. All remaining complaints, namely unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, direct disability discrimination (including the amended Ian Leach Role complaint), discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, and failure to make reasonable adjustments, were found by the Tribunal to be not well-founded and were dismissed.
No monetary award was made because all substantive claims failed. The middle portion of the judgment text was not available to this extraction, so the detailed reasoning supporting each individual finding has not been fully reproduced here; confidence in the outcomes is high because they are taken directly from the judgment dispositive section, while confidence in the supporting findings precis is reduced.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal held the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Tribunal held the complaint of wrongful dismissal was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaint (including the amended complaint relating to the Ian Leach Role) not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability (Equality Act 2010 s.15) not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Working time regulations | Annual leave / Working Time Regulations 1998 complaint dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore [1996] ICR 836
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership UKEAT/0147/20/BA
- Equality Act 2010 section 15
- Working Time Regulations 1998
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.