Case 6001891/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Allen Hart v Secretary of State for Transport — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001891/2023
- Decision date
- 1 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Scott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Allen Hart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Mr Michael Allen Hart's complaints of direct disability discrimination, harassment related to disability, and discrimination arising from disability were not well-founded and were dismissed. These findings were set out in the judgment record without further written reasons.
The tribunal also recorded that the failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint was well-founded on its substance, but that the complaint had not been presented within the applicable time limit. It held that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so that claim was dismissed as well. No monetary remedy was awarded in the decision record.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal said this complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was well-founded, but it was presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit, so the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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.