Case 3310650/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr P Ballam v Dacorum Borough Council — 2022

Case reference: 3310650/2021
Decision date: 24 November 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Quill
Venue: Watford
Panel members: Mr Dykes, Ms Telfer

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr P Ballam

Respondent

Dacorum Borough Council

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that Mr Ballam had a disability within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at all relevant times and that Dacorum Borough Council dismissed him, with his employment ending on 11 February 2022. None of the complaints of direct discrimination because of disability succeeded. It also found that the Respondent had a duty to make reasonable adjustments and that it breached that duty between September 2020 and May 2021 by failing to allow him to work shifts as a loader when his disability required that; although that complaint was out of time, the tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis.

The tribunal dismissed the other complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments and did not extend time for those out-of-time complaints. It also upheld two claims under section 15 Equality Act 2010, finding unfavourable treatment in the decision not to allow the Claimant to carry out driving duties after the end of his medical suspension and in the letter dated 12 January 2022 changing his terms and conditions to Loader, Band 5 SCP 11 with effect from 14 February 2022.

The tribunal further found that the Claimant's dismissal was unfair and that it contravened section 39(2)(c) Equality Act 2010. The Claimant did not seek reinstatement or re-engagement. A remedy hearing was listed for 2 December 2022 to deal with the remaining remedy issues, and the written judgment does not record a final monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

7 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	All complaints of direct discrimination because of disability failed.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal found a duty to make reasonable adjustments and held that the Respondent breached that duty between September 2020 and May 2021 by failing to allow the Claimant to work shifts as a loader when his disability required that. The complaint was out of time, but time was extended on a just and equitable basis.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The other complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments failed, and where those complaints were out of time the tribunal did not extend time.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal held that the Respondent discriminated against the Claimant under section 15 Equality Act 2010 by refusing to allow him to carry out driving duties after the end of his medical suspension.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal held that the Respondent discriminated against the Claimant under section 15 Equality Act 2010 by informing him by letter dated 12 January 2022 of a change in his terms and conditions to Loader, Band 5 SCP 11, which would have taken effect from 14 February 2022.

Legal tests applied

6 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.