Case 6013955/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Taylor-Brace v University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013955/2024
- Decision date
- 13 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Taylor-Brace
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr J Taylor-Brace, brought a disability discrimination complaint under sections 20-21 of the Equality Act 2010 arising from an allegation that at a meeting on 25 July 2024 he was not allowed to use captioning equipment as an adjustment. The hearing on 10 July 2025 before Employment Judge Shotter sitting alone was a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the claimant had volunteered to become a public governor on the respondent's Council of Governors, had been elected for a three-year term from 18 October 2023, and was unpaid, although he received expenses and some practical support when attending meetings.
The Tribunal held that the claimant was a volunteer and not an employee, worker, or office holder for Equality Act purposes. It found there was no contract of employment, no contractual obligation on the claimant to perform work, no contractual obligation on the respondent to pay him, and no mutuality of obligation. The provision of IT equipment, a lanyard, parking, meal allowance, and similar support was treated as assistance for attendance at meetings rather than remuneration. The Tribunal also relied on the statutory definitions in section 83(2) and the fact that the claimant was elected to the role rather than appointed to a remunerated office or post.
On that basis, the Tribunal held that sections 20-21 of the Equality Act 2010 did not apply and dismissed the disability discrimination claim for lack of jurisdiction. It referred to X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and anor, and also discussed South East Sheffield Citizens Advice Bureau v Grayson and Gilham v Ministry of Justice, but did not accept the claimant's attempt to equate his position with protected office holders. The claimant's application for a stay and/or reconsideration was refused in the interests of justice, and because the jurisdiction point disposed of the case, the strike-out and deposit application was not considered further.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed at preliminary hearing because the Tribunal found the claimant was a volunteer and not an employee, worker, or office holder, so it had no jurisdiction to determine the section 20-21 Equality Act 2010 claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.39(5) Equality Act 2010
- s.83(2) Equality Act 2010
- s.49-52 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 68-70 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and anor [2013] ICR 249 (SC)
- South East Sheffield Citizens Advice Bureau v Grayson [2004] ICR 1138 (EAT)
- Gilham v Ministry of Justice (Protect intervening) [2019] ICR 1655 (SC)
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.