Case 3314867/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. K Nottra v Santander UK plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 3314867/2019
- Decision date
- 6 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap
- Venue
- Via Cloud Video Platform
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. K Nottra
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing concerning disability status, amendment, limitation, and applications for strike out or deposit orders. The Tribunal found that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of anxiety disorder at all material times. It did not find stress to be a separate impairment, treating it as a manifestation of the anxiety disorder, and did not find depression established as a pleaded disability at the material time.
The Tribunal allowed the claimant to amend the claim in part. It permitted several disability-related allegations to proceed, including discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and disability-related harassment. It refused amendment for certain historic sex-related allegations, including allegations 1, 15 and 17, because of their age, the timing of the application, and concerns about the cogency of evidence.
The Tribunal found that several allegations had been presented outside the Equality Act time limit, but decided it was just and equitable to extend time for the allegations allowed to proceed. It rejected the claimant's argument that all discrimination complaints formed a continuing course of conduct, but accepted evidence about his mental health, lack of effective union advice, lack of home support, and attempts to resolve matters internally.
The respondent's wider applications for strike out or deposit orders were refused, except for allegation 8. That reasonable adjustments allegation was struck out because the claimant had not identified the substantial disadvantage or the adjustment said to be required, which the Tribunal considered a key ingredient of the claim.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis 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 | Preliminary hearing only. The Tribunal found the claimant was disabled by anxiety disorder at the material times, allowed several disability discrimination allegations to proceed, and refused strike out or deposit orders for those remaining allegations. No merits outcome was determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Allegation 8, a failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint about ticking boxes to say disability had been discussed when it had not, was struck out under Rule 37 because the claimant had not identified a substantial disadvantage or adjustment. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. Direct sex discrimination allegations 2, 3 and 4 were permitted to proceed to a full merits hearing. The proposed amendment for allegation 1 was refused. No merits outcome was determined. | Other | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary hearing only. The disability-related harassment allegation numbered 14 was permitted to proceed. No merits outcome was determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary hearing only. Sex-related harassment allegations 16 and 18 were permitted to proceed. Proposed amendments for allegations 15 and 17 were refused. No merits outcome was determined. |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd t/a Stagecoach Selkent v Moore
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment
- Guidance on the definition of 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.