Case 2406676/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Oldale v Peach Law Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2406676/2023
- Decision date
- 7 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms L Atkinson, Ms A Berkeley-Hill
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr C Oldale
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr C Oldale had a disability at the relevant time by reason of bipolar affective disorder. He had been offered a Legal Director role by Peach Law Limited on 9 February 2023, due to start on 11 April 2023, but the offer was withdrawn on 27 March 2023 after a reference from his then employer and a telephone conversation between Mr Oldale and Ms D L Armitage. The hearing was on liability only; remedy was not determined.
On the direct disability discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal found that Ms Armitage did not know that Mr Oldale had a disability when she withdrew the offer. It accepted her evidence that she withdrew the offer because she believed he had been dishonest, not because of disability. The tribunal also found that the appropriate hypothetical comparator would have been someone in materially the same circumstances whom she believed had misled her, and it did not find that Mr Oldale had shown less favourable treatment because of disability.
On the section 15 claim, the tribunal found that Mr Oldale's sickness absence from Aticus Law arose in consequence of his disability. It also found that some symptoms around 24 March 2023 could be linked to his disability and inability to keep down medication, but it did not find that the withdrawal of the offer was because of that absence, those symptoms, or his decision not to disclose that he was off work until 24 March 2023. The reason for the withdrawal was Ms Armitage's belief that Mr Oldale had been dishonest, so the discrimination arising from disability claim also failed. The tribunal noted that no legitimate aims had been pleaded, so it would not in any event have accepted justification on the case as pleaded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | s.13 direct disability discrimination claim against both respondents concerning withdrawal of the job offer on 27 March 2023. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | s.15 discrimination arising from disability claim against both respondents concerning the withdrawal of the job offer; tribunal found no actual or imputed knowledge of disability and no causal link between the withdrawal and any something arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Wilcox v Birmingham CAB Services Limited
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh
- Pnaiser v NHS England
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.