Case 2406396/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Thornhill v Amey Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2406396/2024
- Decision date
- 17 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney’s
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Thornhill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of direct disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation under sections 13, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010. The disability discrimination complaint concerned a 2023 pay award, and the harassment and victimisation complaints concerned emails from the respondent's IT department asking him to run a security scan on his work laptop.
The Tribunal struck out the 2023 pay award complaint because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and there was no reasonable prospect of establishing that it would be just and equitable to extend time. It also found that the pay award and IT email complaints should have been included in the claimant's earlier claim if he wished to pursue them, and that bringing them as a fresh claim was an abuse of process.
For the IT email complaint, the Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of establishing that the security scan request was a detriment or was because of the claimant's earlier Tribunal claim. It also found no reasonable prospect of establishing harassment related to disability. The whole claim was additionally struck out because it had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment describes this as a complaint of direct disability discrimination about a 2023 pay award. It was struck out as out of time, as an abuse of process, and because the claim as a whole had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The harassment complaint concerned emails from the respondent's IT department asking the claimant to run a security scan. The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of showing the request was related to disability or had the prohibited purpose or effect, and the claim was also struck out on abuse of process and active pursuit grounds. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation complaint concerned emails from the respondent's IT department. The Tribunal accepted there was no difficulty identifying a protected act but found no reasonable prospect of proving detriment or a causal link to the protected act, and the claim was also struck out on abuse of process and active pursuit grounds. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d)
- sections 13, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010
- Henderson v Henderson rule
- The London Borough of Haringey v O'Brien
- just and equitable to extend the time limit
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.