Case 3300652/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Panesar v Mitie Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300652/2023
- Decision date
- 18 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Panesar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment determined preliminary issues about disability status. The tribunal found that, from no later than 21 September 2021, the Claimant's close relative had a disability within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010, namely diabetes.
The tribunal was not satisfied that the close relative's alleged impairments of sepsis or pneumonia met the statutory definition of disability during the period 21 September 2021 to 25 January 2023. It was also not satisfied that the Claimant had any impairment meeting the definition of disability during that period.
As a result of those preliminary findings, all complaints alleging disability discrimination within section 15 Equality Act 2010 and section 21 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaints alleging discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed following the preliminary issue decision. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaints alleging failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments under section 21 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed following the preliminary issue decision. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 21 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.