Case 6018191/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Panton v Sysco GB Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6018191/2025
- Decision date
- 31 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harrison Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Panton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Harrison dismissed Mr A Panton's unfair dismissal claim because it was presented outside the applicable time limit. The Tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable for him to present the claim in time.
Mr Panton's disability discrimination claims were also presented outside the applicable time limit, but the Tribunal found it just and equitable to extend time and directed that those claims would proceed. It found that, at the time of the events in question, Mr Panton did not have a disability as defined by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of anxiety, depression or chronic back pain. The judgment records no final decision on the merits of the discrimination claims and makes no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and the Tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis and directed that the disability discrimination claims would proceed. It also found that the claimant did not have a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time by reason of anxiety, depression or chronic back pain. This judgment records no final merits outcome for the discrimination claims. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable test for the unfair dismissal time limit
- just and equitable test for the disability discrimination time limit
- section 6 Equality Act 2010 definition of disability
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.