Case 2601614/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Adrian Gibson v East Midlands Education Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601614/2022
- Decision date
- 9 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Adrian Gibson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 9 March 2023 before Employment Judge Ahmed sitting alone, the tribunal refused Mr Adrian Gibson's applications to amend his claim to add disabilities of stress and anxiety and arthritis, and to add complaints of direct and indirect disability discrimination and a breach of section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that he was a disabled person at the material times by reason of lymphoma and sleep apnoea. The issue of the respondent's knowledge was left for the final hearing.
The tribunal granted leave to amend the claim to include automatic unfair dismissal by reason of having made a protected disclosure. The protected disclosure was said to be a written statement made during the disciplinary investigation and identified in the bundle at pages 96 and 97. No merits findings or remedy were determined at this hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Application to amend to include disabilities of stress & anxiety and arthritis was refused. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Application to add complaints of direct and indirect disability discrimination was refused. | Other | Disability | — |
| Other | Application to add a breach of section 149 Equality Act 2010 (public sector equality duty) was refused. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Leave to amend was granted to include a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal by reason of having made a protected disclosure. The merits were not determined at this hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.