Case 6005282/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Jennings v Brading Haven Yacht Club — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005282/2024
- Decision date
- 2 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray-Jones Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul Jennings
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Bristol by CVP before Employment Judge Gray-Jones, heard the case on 14 to 15 August 2025. The claimant, Mr Paul Jennings, appeared in person and the respondent, Brading Haven Yacht Club, was represented by Mr McKimm, a retired solicitor and lay representative.
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the claim so as to bring a whistleblowing complaint. The written record gives no further reasons for that refusal in the extracted text.
On the substantive Equality Act issue, the tribunal found that Mr Jennings was not a disabled person within s.6 Equality Act 2010 during the period relevant to the claim. On that basis, the claim was dismissed.
The judgment records no monetary award and no separate remedy findings. Written reasons were not provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person under s.6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period. The judgment also refused the claimant's application to amend the claim to bring a whistleblowing complaint, but that was an amendment application rather than a substantive claim outcome. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.6 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.