Case 2405152/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Banham v BOC Limited — 2017
- Case reference
- 2405152/2016
- Decision date
- 27 February 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Banham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination arising out of the termination of his employment on 5 August 2016. This hearing on 27 April 2017 was a preliminary hearing and case management hearing only; it did not determine liability or remedy, but dealt with disclosure and amendment issues for the later proceedings.
The tribunal granted the respondent's application for disclosure of the claimant's medical records going back to 2008, finding that the records were relevant to the disability issue and to the respondent's Polkey case, but that disclosure going back to 1999 would be disproportionate. It also ordered general disclosure of further potentially relevant documents, including diary entries, communications with the claimant's union, mitigation material, benefits documents and documents relating to attempts to find work.
On amendment, the tribunal allowed the claimant to add a second protected act based on communications from his union at and/or after the appeal, but refused the further amendment seeking an alternative victimisation plea under s.27(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. The tribunal directed further case management and listed another preliminary hearing; no compensation was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The tribunal allowed amendment to add a second protected act said to arise from union communications at and/or after the appeal, but refused the alternative s.27(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 amendment. No merits determination was made in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Selkent principles
- relevance
- proportionality
- Polkey
- s.27(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- s.136 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.