Case 2409547/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Durkin v Pets Choice Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2409547/2021
- Decision date
- 28 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Durkin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr G Durkin, brought a claim described by the tribunal as perceived direct disability discrimination against Pets Choice Limited. The hearing was on 19 November 2021 before Employment Judge Aspinall sitting alone in Liverpool.
The tribunal struck out the claim on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant’s case was that the respondent perceived he would become mentally unwell and that this would amount to a disability in the future.
The tribunal recorded that he did not argue that the respondent perceived him to have a condition that might progress to a disability, and he also did not argue that the respondent perceived him to have any condition at all as at the date of the decision to dismiss him. On that basis, the tribunal distinguished the case from The Chief Constable of Norfolk v Lisa Coffey [2019] EWCA Civ 1061, which had been cited by the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim pleaded as perceived direct disability discrimination. It was struck out because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.