Case 2501925/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Mullinger v Ministry of Justice — 2024

Case reference: 2501925/2023
Decision date: 6 June 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Aspden
Panel members: Mr S Moules, Mr S Wykes

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Mullinger

Respondent

Ministry of Justice

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The unanimous judgment records that Mr A Mullinger's complaints of disability discrimination were well founded. The tribunal specified two bases: failure to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments and dismissal, both contrary to section 39 of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal also found the complaint of unfair dismissal well founded. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not set out further factual findings, legal analysis, or remedy figures.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The tribunal found well founded the complaint that the respondent discriminated contrary to section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 by failing to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal found well founded the complaint that the respondent discriminated contrary to section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 by dismissing the claimant.	Upheld	Disability	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal well founded.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.