Case 3306669/2018 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Mr C Baker (Solicitor) — 2018

Case reference: 3306669/2018
Decision date: 5 October 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Alliott Appearances
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Mr C Baker (Solicitor)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the preliminary hearing on 14 August 2019, the tribunal determined as a preliminary issue that the claimant was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, with the relevant impairment being back pain said to have started after a lifting accident on 30 March 2017. The judge relied on the claimant's impact statement, occupational health reports, a root cause analysis, and physiotherapy evidence, and accepted that the back injury was sustained on 30 March 2017 and continued to affect him beyond 12 months.

The tribunal found that, by 22 April 2018, the impairment had lasted long enough to be long term and that it had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. In reaching that conclusion, it disregarded the effect of treatment and accepted that lifting, moving, pulling and pushing moderately heavy items, as well as prolonged standing or walking, were normal day-to-day activities. It therefore held that the claimant was a disabled person at all material times because of a back impairment.

The respondent's application for strike out and/or a deposit order was dismissed. The tribunal said this was not one of the clearest cases for strike out, and it was not prepared to conclude that the disability claim or the related age, race, trade union, and religion claims had little reasonable prospect of success. It noted that the disability complaint concerned a lifting-and-moving PCP, and that the claimant, as a litigant in person, should have his complaints evaluated by a full tribunal.

The age and race complaints were described as relating to the refusal of full QM training and the failure to appoint the claimant in November 2017 as a Band 7 Team Manager. The religion complaint was described as relating to being discouraged from applying for a post that would have required Sunday working, which the tribunal said was outside the primary limitation period but potentially capable of an extension-of-time argument. The claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed upon withdrawal after the respondent accepted full liability for the actions complained of.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found the claimant was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of a back impairment. The respondent's strike-out and/or deposit application was dismissed and the disability discrimination claim was allowed to proceed.	Other	Disability	—
Age discrimination	The tribunal refused to strike out or require a deposit in relation to the age discrimination allegations, which were allowed to proceed for full hearing.	Other	Age	—
Race discrimination	The tribunal refused to strike out or require a deposit in relation to the race discrimination allegations, which were allowed to proceed for full hearing.	Other	Race	—
Religion or belief discrimination	The tribunal noted this complaint appeared to be outside the primary limitation period and that an extension-of-time issue would arise, but it did not regard the claim as having little reasonable prospect of success.	Other	Religion or belief	—
Trade union	The tribunal refused to strike out or require a deposit in relation to the trade union-related allegations, which were allowed to proceed for full hearing.	Other	—	—
Other	The claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed upon withdrawal after the respondent accepted full liability for the actions complained of.

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.