Case 3314941/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Pretesh Singadia v Adaptimmune Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 3314941/2023
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freshwater Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Pretesh Singadia
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the first day of an open preliminary hearing on 6 March 2025, the tribunal refused an application to adjourn and gave oral reasons for deciding that the claimant was not a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. As a result, the claims of direct discrimination relating to disability, indirect discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment relating to disability were dismissed.
The order records that the claimant's claims relating to automatically unfair dismissal, victimisation, less favourable treatment of a fixed-term worker, and breach of contract still needed to be considered. On 7 March 2025, after the claimant said he was unwell and could not attend, the tribunal adjourned the second day of the preliminary hearing to 3 April 2025 and directed the claimant to provide further medical information.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal stated that the claimant was not a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, and that his claims of direct discrimination relating to disability, indirect discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal stated that harassment relating to disability was dismissed following the finding that the claimant was not a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal stated that the claimant's claim relating to automatically unfair dismissal still needed to be considered; no outcome was determined in this order. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal stated that the claimant's victimisation claim still needed to be considered; no outcome was determined in this order. | Other | — | — |
| Fixed-term employee regulations | The tribunal stated that the claimant's less favourable treatment of a fixed-term worker claim still needed to be considered; no outcome was determined in this order. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal stated that the claimant's breach of contract claim still needed to be considered; no outcome was determined in this order. |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
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.