Case 3201441/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr V Sach v Sanctuary Maintenance Contractors Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201441/2022
- Decision date
- 12 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Members
- Venue
- East London
- Panel members
- Mr M Rowe, Mr J Webb
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr V Sach
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that two complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability were well-founded: not providing an adjusted van with a bulkhead between September 2019 and July 2020, and taking the claimant off the adjusted rota from August 2021. The remaining reasonable adjustment complaints were dismissed.
The Tribunal also dismissed the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under s.100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 relating to health and safety and the complaint of unfair dismissal under s.94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability succeeded in relation to not providing an adjusted van with a bulkhead between September 2019 and July 2020 and taking the claimant off the adjusted rota from August 2021. Remaining reasonable adjustment complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal under s.94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under s.100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 relating to health and safety was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.100 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.