Case 2405712/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Thornhill v Amey Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2405712/2023
- Decision date
- 24 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Thornhill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant was disabled by symptoms of long covid during March to July 2022, the only period in dispute. It accepted evidence that the condition had more than a minor or trivial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, including work capacity, social activity and personal care managed by pacing.
The age discrimination and victimisation complaints were withdrawn. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction over complaints about matters before 26 November 2022 because there was no continuing act of discrimination and it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The remaining disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. On direct discrimination, the Tribunal found the claimant had not shown facts from which disability discrimination could be inferred in relation to the pay award, APMP training or investigation of allegations. On discrimination arising from disability, reasonable adjustments, harassment and indirect discrimination, the Tribunal found variously that the alleged treatment or PCPs had not occurred, had not caused the pleaded disadvantage, were not related to disability, or were not shown to meet the relevant statutory tests.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The complaints of age discrimination were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Victimisation | The complaints of victimisation were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaints about the 2022 pay award, APMP training and investigation of allegations were not well founded; complaints about matters before 26 November 2022 were also outside jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaints of discrimination arising from disability were not well founded; pre-26 November 2022 matters were outside jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments were not well founded; pre-26 November 2022 matters were outside jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Complaints of harassment related to disability were not well founded; pre-26 November 2022 matters were outside jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
18 references- Section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Section 13 Equality Act 2010
- Section 23 Equality Act 2010
- Section 15 Equality Act 2010
- Section 20 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 Equality Act 2010
- Nottingham City Transport Ltd v Harvey
- Ishola v Transport for London
- Finnigan v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police
- Section 26 Equality Act 2010
- Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire
- Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust v Allen
- Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board v Hughes
- Weeks v Newham College of Further Education
- Section 39 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.