Case 2402664/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D H Chan v Mills Hill Developments Limited HELD AT: Liverpool — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402664/2024
- Decision date
- 12 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D H Chan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent as a demi chef de partie from 19 May 2022 until his employment was terminated on 1 July 2022. He said he was disabled by reason of Aspergers, an Autistic Spectrum Condition, and was concerned that his dismissal was connected with disability; the respondent accepted the impairment but disputed that it met the statutory definition of disability.
The Tribunal determined preliminary issues about time limits and strike out. The complaints of direct disability discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and parts of the victimisation and discrimination arising from disability complaints were dismissed as out of time, with no just and equitable extension. Remaining pleaded allegations concerning later correspondence were struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
8 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 | Direct discrimination contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect discrimination contrary to section 19 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment contrary to section 26 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation detriments (a) and (b) were dismissed because they were not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation detriment (c) was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
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.