Case 2500321/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. L. v Ministry of Justice — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500321/2023
- Decision date
- 30 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. L.
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The claims related to his service in the British Army and his medical discharge after he was diagnosed with HIV, which the parties agreed was a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal held that the disability provisions in Part 5 of the Equality Act 2010 did not apply to service in the armed forces because of paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 9. It found that, on that basis, it lacked jurisdiction to determine the disability discrimination allegations and struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospects of success.
The tribunal considered submissions about reading the Equality Act 2010 compatibly with the Human Rights Act 1998 and articles 6, 8 and 14, but its primary conclusion remained that it lacked jurisdiction. It did not hear argument on the proposed amendment to add direct race discrimination and said it would assume that application was withdrawn unless the claimant gave written reasons within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim struck out under rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction under paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability claim struck out under rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction under paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination claim struck out under rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction under paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim struck out under rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction under paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules
- paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 9 Equality Act 2010
- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Human Rights Act 1998
- Article 6
- Article 8
- Article 14
- conventional proportionality test
- manifestly without reasonable foundation test
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.