Case 2500827/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Holdsworth v Nissan Motor Manufacturing (uk) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500827/2022
- Decision date
- 9 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Members
- Panel members
- Ms S Don, Mr P Curtis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Holdsworth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal, sitting at Newcastle CFCTC on 6 to 8 February 2023, heard Mr D Holdsworth's complaints against Nissan Motor Manufacturing UK Limited. The claimant appeared in person, accompanied by Mrs G Holdsworth, and the respondent was represented by Miss B Clayton of Counsel.
The unanimous judgment was that the claimant's complaints of unlawful disability discrimination, identified as failure to make reasonable adjustments, were not well-founded and were dismissed. The written record does not set out the factual findings or reasoning because reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons would only be provided on request.
No monetary remedy or award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment records the complaint as unlawful disability discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments. Reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in the supplied judgment text. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.