Case 4104393/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104393/2023 (V) Held at Aberdeen on April 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr Adam Gajdosy v Big Issue Sharebike Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4104393/2023
- Decision date
- 11 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104393/2023 (V) Held at Aberdeen on April 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr Adam Gajdosy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Aberdeen on 10 April 2024 before Employment Judge N M Hosie, with the claimant appearing in person and no appearance for the respondent, the tribunal decided a preliminary issue rather than the substantive claims. The tribunal found that Mr Gajdosy was a disabled person at the relevant time within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, relying on his Degenerative Disc Disease and chronic back pain.
The judgment did not resolve liability on the underlying claims. Instead, it stated that the case should proceed to a final hearing on the merits. No remedy was awarded at this stage, and no findings were made in this judgment on dismissal, deduction from wages, working time, or any substantive discrimination allegation beyond the disability status issue.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment did not determine the substantive discrimination claim. It decided the preliminary issue that the claimant was a disabled person at the relevant time, by virtue of Degenerative Disc Disease and chronic back pain, within s.6 Equality Act 2010, and directed that the case proceed to a final hearing on the merits. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.6 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.