Case 2406645/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Jdidi v Diamond Bus North West Ltd — 2024

Case reference: 2406645/2023
Decision date: 29 February 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge McDonald Representation
Venue: Manchester

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Jdidi

Respondent

Diamond Bus North West Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal, sitting in Manchester on 29 February 2024 before Employment Judge McDonald, found that Mr M Jdidi was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of kidney stones. It also recorded that the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability could proceed.

This written record does not contain a final liability decision on the substance of the disability complaint, and it records no monetary remedy. The decision is limited to the disability status finding and the conclusion that the relevant Equality Act complaint could proceed.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The tribunal found that, at the relevant times, the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of kidney stones, and that the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability could proceed. The judgment does not record a final merits outcome or any award.	Other	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.