Case 6009433/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Mutangadura v AJ Bell plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009433/2024
- Decision date
- 9 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Mutangadura
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints arising from two unsuccessful job applications to AJ Bell PLC in April and June 2024. At an earlier case management hearing, the identified issues included age discrimination, disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment. The claimant later withdrew the age discrimination complaints and the direct disability discrimination complaint.
At the preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered whether the claimant was a disabled person within s.6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period. It found that he was not disabled during the period 2015 to June 2024.
The tribunal also considered whether the disability-related harassment complaint could continue on the basis of perceived disability. It concluded that a request for reasonable adjustments put the respondent on notice that the claimant may prove to have a protected characteristic, but did not mean the respondent believed all elements of the statutory definition were met. The remaining claim was dismissed in its entirety and the deposit order application was not determined.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The claimant withdrew complaints of age discrimination and those claims were dismissed. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Harassment | The age-related harassment complaint was part of the withdrawn age discrimination complaints. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant withdrew the complaint of direct discrimination on grounds of disability and that claim was dismissed. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The remaining disability discrimination complaints, including discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments, were dismissed after the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The disability-related harassment complaint was dismissed because the tribunal found that it could not survive the finding that the claimant was not disabled and was not perceived to be disabled. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Coffey test
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.