Case 3200732/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Ashford v Ruggles & Jeffery Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200732/2021
- Decision date
- 13 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrett Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms J Houzer, Mr P Lush
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Ashford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAfter a hearing at East London Hearing Centre on 6, 7, 8 and 9 December 2022 before Employment Judge Barrett sitting with Ms J Houzer and Mr P Lush, the Tribunal determined the Claimant's Equality Act 2010 claims for discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and disability-related harassment. The Tribunal held that those claims were not well-founded and dismissed them.
The judgment does not record any liability finding in the Claimant's favour and does not award any monetary remedy. It is therefore a full dismissal of the claims listed in the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim for discrimination arising from disability under the Equality Act 2010; the Tribunal found it was not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010; the Tribunal found it was not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Claim for disability-related harassment under the Equality Act 2010; the Tribunal found it was not well-founded. | 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.