Case 2414544/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Brown Respondent 1: Archway Building Services (UK) Limited Respondent 2: Karen Hughes v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414544/2021
- Decision date
- 29 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cronshaw
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr R Brown Respondent 1: Archway Building Services (UK) Limited Respondent 2: Karen Hughes
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Manchester on 15 June 2022, Employment Judge Cronshaw sitting alone recorded a single finding: that Mr R Brown was, at the relevant time, a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant was represented by Mr C Davey, Counsel, and the respondents were represented by Mr L Bronze, Counsel.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment had been given orally at the hearing. It also states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days, and the extracted text contains no further detail on the underlying facts, any substantive liability findings, or any remedy.
On the material provided, the decision is limited to the claimant's disability status for Equality Act purposes. No award is recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the claimant was, at the relevant time, a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010. The extracted judgment record does not include any further merits decision, claim disposal, or remedy. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.