Case 2403639/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Roberts v Openreach Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403639/2022
- Decision date
- 28 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin Non-Legal
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr D Mockford, Ms V Worthington
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr David Roberts was disabled at the material times for the purposes of section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010. It then rejected his claim that he had been subjected to discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010.
The unfair dismissal claim was also rejected by majority. Employment Judge Tobin and non-legal member Mr Mockford held that Mr Roberts was not unfairly dismissed in breach of section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996. Non-legal member Ms Worthington dissented and would have found that he was unfairly dismissed.
The written record states that proceedings would be dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment extract provided, and no remedy figures are set out in the decision text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the claimant was disabled at the material times under section 6 and Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010, but held that he was not subject to discrimination arising from disability in breach of section 15 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | By majority decision of Employment Judge Tobin and non-legal member Mr Mockford, the tribunal held that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed in breach of section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996. Non-legal member Ms Worthington dissented and would have found unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.