Case 4100643/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Robert Maltman v Costa Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100643/2020
- Decision date
- 8 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Robert Maltman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Robert Maltman brought claims against Costa Ltd for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The written judgment records that he appeared in person and that the respondent was represented by Mr Gibson, Advocate, instructed by Mr M Fraser of Freeths LLP.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the tribunal found that the claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service to bring that claim. The disability discrimination claim was also dismissed because the tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person in terms of section 6 of the Equality Act at the relevant time.
The written judgment states that oral reasons were given at the hearing. It records no monetary award, no injury to feelings award, and no other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service to bring a claim of unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the claimant was not a disabled person in terms of section 6 of the Equality Act at the relevant time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 of the Equality Act
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.