Case 2502754/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Toheed Hussain v Armstrong Watson LLP — 2025
- Case reference
- 2502754/2023
- Decision date
- 10 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson
- Venue
- Newcastle
- Panel members
- Mrs P Wright, Mrs L Jackson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Toheed Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent as a Tax Compliance Assistant for just under two months. The respondent accepted that he was disabled by reason of epilepsy, and the tribunal found that his focal seizures could affect memory, concentration and processing ability, meaning that tasks could take longer.
The tribunal found that, up to and including 15 September 2023, the respondent's questioning of the time the claimant was taking and its explanations about efficiency were proportionate. It was not persuaded that arranging the 20 September 2023 meeting, at which the claimant was told he might be dismissed, was proportionate without further exploration of whether time-related performance issues were disability-related.
The tribunal found that the 26 September 2023 probationary review letter did not refer to the claimant's request for extra time, the Broadbent report, or the intended discussion of possible adjustments, and that the claimant could reasonably interpret it as meaning he might be dismissed notwithstanding those matters. It held that sending the letter in those terms was not proportionate and that the section 15 complaint succeeded; remedy was left for a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal upheld the complaint of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. Remedy was reserved for a later hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable adjustments complaint under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was not separately determined; the tribunal said it was neither necessary nor proportionate to decide it in light of the section 15 findings. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 39 Equality Act 2010
- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Carranza v General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd [2015] ICR 169
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.