Case 2405589/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Oldale First v Aticus Law Limited Second Respondent: Mr Simon Paul Antony Fagan Third Respondent: Mr Edward Michael Judge — 2024
- Case reference
- 2405589/2023
- Decision date
- 19 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fairhurst
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Oldale First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter was heard at Manchester by CVP on 14 October 2024 before Employment Judge Fairhurst sitting alone. The judgment records that the hearing was a preliminary hearing in public and that the claimant, Mr C Oldale, appeared in person while the respondents were represented by counsel.
As a preliminary issue, the tribunal found that Mr Oldale was a disabled person as defined by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 because of a mental impairment. On that basis, the complaints of disability discrimination were allowed to proceed. No substantive liability findings on the underlying discrimination complaints are recorded in the written judgment.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record. The decision sent to the parties is dated 19 November 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of a mental impairment, so the disability discrimination complaints could proceed. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 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.