Case 2408852/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Wade v Preston Bus Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408852/2021
- Decision date
- 7 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs M Dowling, Mr D Lancaster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Wade
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Manchester, sitting on 26 to 30 June 2023 before Employment Judge Eeley, Mrs M Dowling and Mr D Lancaster, dismissed all of Mr A Wade's disability-related claims against Preston Bus Ltd. The written judgment records that the claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010, the claim for breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010, and the claim for disability-related harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010 all failed.
The decision record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No remedy was awarded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 (discrimination because of something arising from disability). | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim for breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Claim for disability-related harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20/21 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 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.
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.