Case 6007829/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ashley Bennett v Peak Production Equipment Ltd Heard: by CVP in Cambridge — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007829/2024
- Decision date
- 18 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ashley Bennett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis decision was a preliminary judgment on disability status in the case of Mr Ashley Bennett v Peak Production Equipment Ltd. Employment Judge Codd found that, at the relevant times, Mr Bennett was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of a hearing impairment, autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the complaints of disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment on the grounds of disability could proceed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided.
No liability findings on the substantive discrimination complaints are recorded in the written judgment, and no remedy was awarded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found that at the relevant times the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of hearing impairment, autism and ADHD, and that the disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and disability harassment complaints could therefore proceed. | Other | 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.