Case 3303556/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Livingstone, counsel v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3303556/2018
- Decision date
- 19 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Vowles JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr D Livingstone, counsel
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this public preliminary hearing on 14 February 2020, Employment Judge Vowles heard evidence and read documents from both parties. The tribunal decided that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
On that basis, the complaints of direct disability discrimination and disability-related harassment failed and were dismissed. The judgment does not record any remedy because no liability was found on those complaints.
The tribunal noted that the case remained listed for a seven-day full merits hearing in May 2020 and made no further case management orders. It also stated that no postponement of the full merits hearing would be granted unless there were exceptional and unforeseen circumstances.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010, so the direct disability discrimination complaint failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal said the disability-related harassment complaint failed because the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 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.