Case 2408716/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Risby v Openreach Heard at Leeds by CVP — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408716/2023
- Decision date
- 18 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mrs J Blesic, Mr M Brewer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Risby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr D Risby, brought complaints of unfair dismissal, failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, and unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability against Openreach. The case was heard at Leeds by CVP on 14, 15, 16 and 17 October 2024, with Employment Judge Davies sitting with Mrs J Blesic and Mr M Brewer.
The written judgment records only the tribunal's dispositive decision. It states that all three complaints were not well-founded and were dismissed. No separate written reasons, findings of fact, or legal analysis are included in the short record provided.
The judgment also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the judgment. No monetary award is recorded in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as not well-founded in the written judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Covers the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Covers the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.