Case 6000623/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W J O’Rourke v Morris Leslie Plant Hire Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000623/2024
- Decision date
- 18 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mr K Sleeth, Mrs C Earwaker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W J O’Rourke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as an HGV driver and was selected for redundancy. The tribunal found that his complaint of discrimination arising from disability by dismissal succeeded, while his claims of direct disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that aspects of the redundancy process were unreasonable, including the failure to obtain occupational health advice about how the claimant's autism might affect him in the redundancy process. It concluded that the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but also found that the claimant would have been selected for redundancy and fairly dismissed at the same time even if a fully fair procedure had been followed.
The judgment stated that the claimant would be entitled to a remedy and that the parties would be contacted about a remedies hearing in due course. It did not determine a monetary award in the available text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of discrimination arising from disability by dismissal was found well founded and succeeded. Remedy was deferred to a further hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was found well founded and succeeded. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but concluded the claimant would have been fairly dismissed at the same time if a fully fair procedure had been followed. Remedy was deferred to a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim of direct disability discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Equality Act 2010 section 13
- Equality Act 2010 section 15
- Equality Act 2010 sections 20 and 21
- Equality Act 2010 section 6
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.