Case 6005922/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Pinto v The Stepstone Group UK Ltd V — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005922/2024
- Decision date
- 17 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Pinto
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal refused the claimant's application to rely on without prejudice correspondence. It considered the materials relied upon and found that the matters raised, including timing of an agenda or list of issues, data protection requests, and time pressure in settlement discussions, fell a very long way short of the threshold for unambiguous impropriety.
The Tribunal also refused the claimant's application to amend the claim to include post-dismissal reputational harm. It recorded that the claimant had provided no jurisdictional basis for admitting an anticipatory claim where the alleged harm had not occurred at the date of the claim, and that he made no other application to amend.
On disability, the Tribunal found that the claimant had suffered from stress, depression and/or anxiety linked to life events, but did not have a physical or mental impairment for Equality Act purposes. In the alternative, it found that any impairment had not been shown to have a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities or to be long-term.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | At a public preliminary hearing the Tribunal determined that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of Section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment did not determine the merits of any disability discrimination allegations. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | The claimant's application to amend his claim to include reputational harm post-dismissal was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's application to include without prejudice correspondence on the grounds of unambiguous impropriety was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- unambiguous impropriety
- Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010
- All Answers Ltd v W and another [2021] IRLR 612
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle [2009] ICR 1056
- Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council [2017] ICR 610
- Igweike v TSB Bank Plc [2020] IRLR 267
- Garrod v Riverstone Management Ltd [2023] IRLR 191
- Unilever plc v Proctor & Gamble Co [1999] EWCA Civ 3027
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.