Case 3320839/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Amir Zaka v Hitachi Capital — 2022
- Case reference
- 3320839/2021
- Decision date
- 15 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Amir Zaka
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 12 August 2022, Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto considered whether the claimant was a disabled person at the relevant time for the purposes of his Equality Act complaint. The tribunal held that the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010.
In the same judgment, the tribunal struck out the claimant’s unfair dismissal and disability discrimination complaints on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. The listed final hearing in July 2023 was vacated. The judgment records that, after discussion with the parties, the remaining outstanding matters were money claims arising from the claimant’s final pay being withheld, namely breach of contract and unpaid wages, which were to proceed to a separate final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out at the preliminary hearing on the basis that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The final hearing listed for July 2023 was vacated. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal first determined that the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010. The disability discrimination complaint was then struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.