Case 3314815/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3314815/2022
- Decision date
- 24 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Wood
- Venue
- CVP
- Panel members
- Mrs J Nicholas, Mr R Allan
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claim at CVP on 20-24 May 2024 before Employment Judge R Wood with Mrs J Nicholas and Mr R Allan sitting as members. The claimant, Dr C Mallon, appeared in person and the respondent, Carbon 60 Limited, was represented by Mr Mahmood of counsel.
The tribunal dismissed all three disability discrimination claims. It found that the claimant was not directly discriminated against contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, was not discriminated against because of something arising in consequence of disability contrary to section 15, and that the respondent did not fail to make reasonable adjustments contrary to section 20 of the Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010: direct disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010: discrimination arising from disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under section 20 Equality Act 2010: failure to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.