Case 2500823/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Charles v Stockton Churches Mission to the Single Homeless Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500823/2022
- Decision date
- 3 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Charles
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr A Charles, brought a claim against Stockton Churches Mission to the Single Homeless Ltd. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the claim of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, contrary to s.15 Equality Act 2010, was well founded and succeeded. The judgment did not determine remedy at that stage; instead, it directed that remedy would be decided at a separate hearing on Monday 6 December 2022 at Teesside Employment Tribunal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal determined the claim under s.15 Equality Act 2010 on a rule 21 basis after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Remedy was deferred to a separate hearing listed for 6 December 2022. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.15 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.