Case 3302737/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302737/2024
- Decision date
- 24 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints including unfair dismissal, race discrimination and disability discrimination. This preliminary hearing was listed to decide whether his wrist pain and wrist swelling amounted to a disability under the Equality Act 2010, and to address case management matters.
The tribunal found that the claimant had a physical impairment of wrist pain at the material time, but was not satisfied that it had a substantial adverse long-term effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The evidence showed wrist pain when lifting heavy items over about 6kg in July and August 2023, but did not show effects on other activities or a long-term substantial adverse effect.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the time of the matters complained about. The disability discrimination complaints were therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The preliminary hearing determined that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, so the disability discrimination complaints were struck out. Other pleaded complaints were mentioned as background but were not adjudicated in this judgment. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Appendix 1 to the Equality and Human Rights Commission Code of Practice on Employment (2011)
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.