Case 3311757/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Silvester Bugar v Del Monte (UK) Limited Heard: Watford Hearing Centre (by cloud video platform) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3311757/2021
- Decision date
- 30 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Silvester Bugar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 17 June 2022, Employment Judge Tobin heard evidence from the claimant and submissions from both sides. The tribunal held that, at the relevant times in January and February 2021, Mr Bugar was not a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010.
Because the disability status element was not met, the claimant’s complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments under section 21 of the Equality Act 2010 could not succeed. The judgment also records that the claim had been presented outside the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.
Having considered the circumstances, the tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend time. It therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaints brought on 21 June 2021 and dismissed the proceedings.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that at the relevant times in January and February 2021 the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010, so the reasonable adjustments complaint under section 21 could not succeed. It also found the claim was presented outside the section 123 time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- section 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
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.