Case 4101919/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Keenan v ROK Agency Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4101919/2022
- Decision date
- 28 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Keenan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Keenan pursued disability discrimination and pay-related claims arising from the end of his employment with ROK Agency Ltd. At a case management hearing he confirmed that he was not pursuing unfair dismissal or redundancy payment. The tribunal heard evidence only from the claimant and held that he had not established that he had the protected characteristic of disability for Equality Act purposes.
Applying section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 and referring to J v DLA Piper [2010] IRLR 736, the tribunal found that the medical material and the claimant's evidence showed a stress and anxiety reaction to work pressures rather than a disability. It accepted that he had consulted his GP and had some symptoms, but found the impact on day to day activities was not shown to be substantial and long-term, and noted that he continued working, including while on sick leave.
The tribunal upheld the pay claims. It awarded £1,047.50 for December 2021 arrears of wages, £241.61 in statutory notice pay under section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and £475.75 in untaken holiday pay after taking account of a £75 payment already made. It dismissed the separate £12,500 'share realisation' claim because there was no contract or agreement proving an entitlement to shares or additional pay, and the valuation material did not establish the figure claimed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant did not establish that he had a disability for Equality Act purposes; the tribunal found his stress and anxiety amounted to a reaction to work pressures and was not shown to be substantial and long-term. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of wages for December 2021. The tribunal found he was entitled to his agreed salary of £1,047.50 net for that month. | Upheld | — | £1,048 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay. There was no contractual notice term, so the tribunal awarded one week's statutory notice pay under section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £242 |
| Holiday pay | Untaken holiday on termination. The tribunal accepted 16 days were outstanding, calculated a gross entitlement of £550.75 and deducted the £75 already paid. | Upheld | — | £476 |
| Other | Claim for £12,500 described as 'share realisation'. The tribunal found no contract or agreement proving an entitlement to shares or additional payment, and the valuation material did not support the sum claimed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,765
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Equality Act 2010 s.6 disability definition
- J v DLA Piper [2010] IRLR 736
- Employment Rights Act 1996 s.86 statutory minimum notice
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.