Case 6006346/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J Grant v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006346/2025
- Decision date
- 13 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J Grant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that, at the relevant times, the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of anxiety disorder.
On that basis, the complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment were dismissed. The complaint of victimisation was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant, who confirmed that he was withdrawing all complaints set out in his ET1 and further particulars.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of anxiety disorder, and dismissed the complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The harassment complaint was dismissed after the tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of anxiety disorder. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the complaint of victimisation was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.