Case 3202001/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Farhad Anwar v Hopewell School Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3202001/2023
- Decision date
- 30 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Povey Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Farhad Anwar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as Lead Motor Vehicle Tutor from 3 October 2022 until his dismissal with effect from 5 July 2023. The respondent conceded disability for the proceedings, based on physical impairments following a road traffic accident, but the tribunal found the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have known at the relevant time that the impairments would have the long-term effect required for disability under the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimant's post was terminated because of a redundancy decision connected to staffing needs, continuity for pupils and financial challenges. It found no evidence supporting the claimant's case that the redundancy explanation was a sham or that the dismissal and related treatment were because of disability, something arising from disability, harassment, victimisation, indirect discrimination, or a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The wages and contract complaints were also dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant had been paid full salary for the first three months of absence and statutory sick pay thereafter, that contractual sick pay was discretionary, and that the complaints about belongings, expenses and e-bikes did not establish a breach of contract. Some allegations were out of time, but the tribunal also determined and dismissed the complaints on their merits.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was dismissed. The tribunal found the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have known at the relevant time that the claimant was disabled, and found no basis to infer that the dismissal or other treatment was because of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability was dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant had not shown that the treatment complained of was because of something arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination was dismissed. The tribunal rejected the alleged provision, criterion or practice and did not find the required disadvantage made out. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable adjustments complaint was dismissed. The tribunal found no breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation was dismissed. The tribunal also found pre-19 July 2023 victimisation allegations were out of time and that it had no jurisdiction to determine them, but nevertheless addressed and dismissed the complaints on their merits. |
Legal tests applied
20 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- Basildon & Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe UKEAT/0397/14
- Pnaiser v NHS England [2016] IRLR 170
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- Lamb v The Business Academy Bexley UKEAT/0226/15
- Ishola v Transport for London [2020] EWCA Civ 112
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- Kokomane v Boots Management Services Ltd [2025] EAT 38
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2021] ICR 1263
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc [2007] IRLR 246
- Igen Ltd v Wong [2005] ICR 931
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 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.