Case 2417902/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Cook v AFE Group Ltd T/A Millers Vanguard — 2019
- Case reference
- 2417902/2018
- Decision date
- 7 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr G Skilling, Mr S Stott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Cook
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Manchester on 16 October 2019, before Employment Judge Phil Allen sitting with Mr G Skilling and Mr S Stott, the tribunal decided a preliminary disability issue. It found that Mr D Cook was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times.
Because the claimant was found not to satisfy the disability definition, his disability discrimination claim was dismissed. The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was not determined at this hearing and would be dealt with at a further hearing. The written record also notes that the reasons were given orally, so no separate written reasons were provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person within the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times, so the disability discrimination claim was dismissed. The unfair dismissal claim was not determined in this judgment and was listed for a further hearing. | Dismissed | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.