Case 6000524/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Matthew Jones v Architectus Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000524/2023
- Decision date
- 3 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Matthew Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short written record of an oral judgment heard in private by video on 6 December 2023 before Employment Judge Midgley. The issue recorded in the judgment was whether the claimant's conditions met the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal held that the claimant's depression was not a disability within the meaning of section 6 and schedule 1 Equality Act 2010. It also held that the claimant's dyslexia was a disability at the material time. The record states that the respondent conceded that dyslexia was a disability at the material time.
No remedy was recorded in the judgment, and no further liability findings, compensation assessment, or separate claim outcomes were set out in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary disability-status finding: the tribunal held that the claimant's condition of depression was not a disability within the meaning of section 6 and schedule 1 Equality Act 2010. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary disability-status finding: the tribunal held that the claimant's condition of dyslexia was a disability at the material time, and noted that the respondent conceded that point. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- schedule 1 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.