Case 3304431/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Danny Ford v Grafton Motorcycles Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3304431/2018
- Decision date
- 31 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell
- Panel members
- Mr P. Devonald, Mr A. Schooler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Danny Ford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard in Cambridge on 9 and 10 March 2020 before Employment Judge Michell, with Mr P. Devonald and Mr A. Schooler sitting as lay members. The claimant, Mr Danny Ford, appeared in person and the respondent, Grafton Motorcycles Ltd, was represented by Mr Darren Gray, the respondent's general manager.
The tribunal's unanimous judgment was that the claimant's disability discrimination claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. The only claim recorded in the judgment was that section 15 disability discrimination claim.
The record states that reasons for the tribunal's decision were provided orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in writing within 14 days of the sending of the written record. No monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim under s.15 of the Equality Act 2010 was found not well founded and dismissed. The tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.15 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.