Case 2416033/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Mavani v Borough Care — 2022
- Case reference
- 2416033/2020
- Decision date
- 31 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms C Linney, Mrs S Moores-Gould
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Mavani
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Manchester on 21, 22, 23 and 24 March 2022 and gave a unanimous judgment. It held that Mr P Mavani's unfair dismissal claim under sections 95 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and failed.
The tribunal also dismissed the disability discrimination claims. It found that the claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010, said to arise when the claimant was dismissed, was not well-founded and failed. It further found that the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 to 21 Equality Act 2010 was not well-founded and failed.
The written 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 monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under s15 Equality Act 2010 that the respondent discriminated against the claimant when he was dismissed; found not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments under s20-21 Equality Act 2010; found not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20-21 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.