Case 6012609/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Dawson v Diamond Bus Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6012609/2024
- Decision date
- 6 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hindmarch Members
- Panel members
- Mr E Stanley, Mr P Kennedy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Dawson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that, at the relevant times, the Claimant was not a disabled person as defined by Section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of chemical sensitivity. The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal also dismissed the complaints of unlawful deductions from wages, automatic unfair dismissal, and detriments arising from the making of protected disclosures. Each of those complaints was found not to be well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states the Claimant was not a disabled person as defined by Section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of chemical sensitivity, and dismissed the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the complaint of unlawful deductions from wages was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states the complaint of detriments arising from the making of protected disclosures was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.