Case 6001931/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Swan v Virgin Media Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001931/2023
- Decision date
- 23 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beever
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Mr Launder, Mr Ghotbi-Ravandi
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Swan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims against Virgin Media Limited for disability discrimination under sections 13, 15 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found those claims were not well founded and dismissed them.
The claimant also brought a claim of unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found that claim was not well founded and dismissed it. Oral reasons were given on 4 July 2024; the short written judgment does not set out the factual reasoning or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that claims of unlawful disability discrimination contrary to sections 13, 15 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010 were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim contrary to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 13, 15 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.