Case 2413147/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Okopochini v London and Quadrant Housing Trust RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 2413147/2023
- Decision date
- 9 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Okopochini
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Benson sitting alone found that, at the relevant times, Mr D Okopochini was not a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of Gilberts Syndrome. That finding was the basis for dismissing the listed disability complaints.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was dismissed because the tribunal found that, at the relevant times, the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of Gilberts Syndrome. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of discrimination arising from disability was dismissed for the same reason, namely that the claimant was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of Gilberts Syndrome. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to disability was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.
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.