Case 2410176/2022 · Employment Tribunal
MR MARTIN BENTLEY v THE COMMISSIONER FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS HELD AT: Liverpool (by in person) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2410176/2022
- Decision date
- 13 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
- Panel members
- Mr A Murphy, Mrs JE Williams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR MARTIN BENTLEY
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that allegations 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3, brought as disability discrimination complaints under sections 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010, were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
The Tribunal found that a number of further harassment and victimisation allegations were presented outside the statutory time limit. It held that it was not just and equitable to extend time and that it had no jurisdiction to consider those complaints. In the alternative, and for later allegations, it found that the respondent's conduct did not have the proscribed effect under sections 26 and 27, so the harassment and victimisation claims failed and were dismissed.
The Tribunal also dismissed the reasonable adjustments complaint, finding that the respondent was not in breach of its duty under sections 20-21 of the Equality Act 2010. The listed remedy hearing was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Allegations 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 under section 26 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Allegations 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 under section 27 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Further section 26 allegations were dismissed as out of time with no just and equitable extension; in the alternative, specified allegations were not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Further section 27 allegations were dismissed as out of time with no just and equitable extension; in the alternative, specified allegations were not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The respondent was not in breach of its duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20-21 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20-21 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
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.