Case 3300634/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Keith Miles v First Greater Western Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300634/2022
- Decision date
- 16 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mensah Date
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Keith Miles
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary open hearing, the tribunal determined that the claimant was disabled at all material times by reason of bilateral shoulder impingement (described in the judgment as a trapped nerve), within the meaning of section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal also decided that the respondent had not made out its application to strike out the discrimination claims on the ground that they had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records these as preliminary orders only and does not finally determine the substantive discrimination claims or any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal determined that the claimant was disabled within section 6 and Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010, and refused the respondent's strike-out application against the discrimination claims. The substantive discrimination claim was not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- no reasonable prospect of success
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.