Case 3311886/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Lloyd-Penny v Automobile Association Developments Limited — 2025

Case reference: 3311886/2023
Decision date: 23 January 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Quill
Venue: Watford
Panel members: Mr D Bean, Mr D Sagar

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Lloyd-Penny

Respondent

Automobile Association Developments Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that the claimant's dismissal was an act of disability discrimination. It upheld the complaint of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 and the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The tribunal further found that the respondent breached the duty to make reasonable adjustments by failing to make the adjustment identified in paragraph 3.13.3 of the list of issues. All other complaints failed and were dismissed. The written judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing and does not provide further reasoning or remedy figures.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The complaint identified at paragraph 3.5.5 of the list of issues, discrimination within section 15 Equality Act 2010, succeeded.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The complaint identified at paragraph 3.13.4 of the list of issues, failure to make reasonable adjustments, succeeded. The tribunal also found a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments by failing to make the adjustment suggested at paragraph 3.13.3 of the list of issues.	Upheld	Disability	—
Unfair dismissal	The judgment states that all other complaints failed and were dismissed. The gov.uk listing category includes Unfair Dismissal, but the short written judgment does not separately describe the unfair dismissal issue.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 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 .

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.