Case 4106230/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J McAuley st v Represented by: Mr S Smith Solicitor Island Bakery Organics Limited st and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 4106230/2022
- Decision date
- 4 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Buzzard
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J McAuley st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Glasgow by CVP on 3 August 2023 before Employment Judge N Buzzard. The written judgment, dated 4 August 2023, records a preliminary issue rather than a final merits decision on the claimants' complaints.
The tribunal found that the second claimant, Ms M Hunter, was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times for the claimants' claims. That is the only substantive finding recorded in the extracted text.
No written reasons are included in the judgment because reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the record states that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's usual process. No remedy or liability award is recorded in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment is a preliminary hearing decision and records only that the second claimant was found to be a disabled person as defined by s6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times for the claimants' claims. No liability finding on the substantive discrimination claim is given in the extracted text. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s6 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.