Case 3301841/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Gary Evans v Kingdom LA Support Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 3301841/2025
- Decision date
- 9 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taft REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Gary Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 9 July 2026, the tribunal found that Gary Evans was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 between October 2024 and December 2024 because of anxiety, depression and PTSD symptoms. Summary reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal ruled that his complaints against Kingdom LA Support Ltd of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments could therefore proceed. The judgment determined disability status, without deciding whether the respondent had discriminated against him. No monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination: permitted to proceed following the finding on disability status. Liability was not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability: permitted to proceed following the finding on disability status. Liability was not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments: permitted to proceed following the finding on disability status. Liability was not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 6 Equality Act 2010: definition of disability
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.