Case 3302108/2022 · Employment Tribunal
J P Flint v Wilson James Ltd and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302108/2022
- Decision date
- 3 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
J P Flint
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought a disability discrimination claim against Wilson James Ltd and Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd. The Respondents accepted that the Claimant's back problems amounted to a disability and that they knew of that disability at all material times.
The tribunal held that the Claimant was not a contract worker for the 2nd Respondent for the purposes of section 41 Equality Act 2010. It struck out the claim against the 2nd Respondent, and the part of the claim against the 1st Respondent based on actions of the 2nd Respondent or its personnel, as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal did not permit an amendment to add unfair dismissal. It said that, if the amendment had been permitted, it would have struck out that claim because the Claimant had been absent for over three months with no prospect of imminent return and the capability dismissal was not unfair.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claim against the 2nd Respondent relied on section 41 Equality Act 2010 and allegations of bullying and harassment by two employees of the 2nd Respondent. The tribunal held the Claimant was not a contract worker for the 2nd Respondent and struck out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The claim against the 1st Respondent, insofar as it sought to make the 1st Respondent liable for alleged disability-related harassment by employees of the 2nd Respondent, was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal did not permit the amendment to include unfair dismissal and therefore did not decide the strike-out application for that claim. It stated that, had amendment been permitted, it would have struck out the unfair dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37 of The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 41 Equality Act 2010
- Ahir v British Airways Plc [2017] EWCA Civ 1392
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.