Case 2406788/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Cunniff v DHL Services Limited HELD AT: Manchester (in person) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406788/2022
- Decision date
- 16 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Cunniff
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningHeard on 10 May 2023, the judgment records that Employment Judge Anderson found Mr D Cunniff was a disabled person for the purposes of s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of colour blindness at all material times. The written record does not set out any further substantive liability findings beyond that disability-status determination.
The note 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. No remedy award is recorded in the supplied text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The supplied written record only states that the claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of colour blindness at all material times. It does not record a final liability outcome on the substantive complaint. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.