Case 2600449/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Basra v Berkeley Insurance Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2600449/2019
- Decision date
- 24 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Basra
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 15 June 2020 before Employment Judge Ahmed sitting alone, the tribunal held that Mr Basra was not at the material times a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010. The disability discrimination complaints were therefore struck out.
The tribunal also struck out the complaint of breach of contract and the complaint of unlawful deduction of wages. No separate merits findings or compensatory calculations were recorded for those claims in the judgment.
By consent, Berkeley Insurance Group Limited agreed to pay Mr Basra £72.74 net in respect of outstanding holiday pay. The judgment records no separate basic award, compensatory award, injury to feelings award, or interest.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the claimant was not, at the material times, a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010, so the disability discrimination complaints were struck out. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | By consent, the respondent agreed to pay £72.74 net in respect of outstanding holiday pay. | Settled | — | £73 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £73
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 and Schedule 1 of the 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.
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.