Case 2403660/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Wilson-Kelly v Sellafield Limited HELD AT: Manchester — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403660/2023
- Decision date
- 26 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson MEMBERS
- Panel members
- Mr J Flynn, Mrs L Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Wilson-Kelly
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting in Manchester on 15, 16, 17 (pm only), 18 and 19 April 2024 before Employment Judge Johnson with lay members Mr J Flynn and Mrs L Taylor, heard Mr I Wilson-Kelly's Equality Act claims against Sellafield Limited. It found that the complaints of disability discrimination and victimisation were not well founded.
The tribunal also dealt with a complaint of indirect discrimination under section 19 Equality Act 2010 and held that it had been presented out of time contrary to section 123 Equality Act 2010. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing. No monetary award is recorded in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held the complaint of disability discrimination was not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal held the victimisation complaint was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal stated that the indirect discrimination complaint under section 19 Equality Act 2010 was presented out of time contrary to section 123 Equality Act 2010. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 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.