Case 3200814/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I. Sam v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200814/2023
- Decision date
- 18 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs M. Legg, Mr J. Quinlan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I. Sam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal amended the name of the Respondent to Secretary of State for Justice.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time. As a result, the Claimant's disability discrimination claims were not well-founded and were dismissed.
The Tribunal also found that the Claimant's unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not set out further reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal found the Claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time; consequently the disability discrimination claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.6 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.