Case 6019354/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Shelton v Danmagi Group APS AT A PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019354/2024
- Decision date
- 26 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Shelton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing heard at Leeds by CVP on 26 August 2025, the Tribunal considered whether the Claimant fell within the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010 at the material times.
The Tribunal held that the Claimant had not established that he met that definition. On that basis, the claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment dismissed a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 because the Claimant had not established that he fell within the statutory definition of disability at the material times. Written reasons were not included in the provided text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- definition of disability within the Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 and 21 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.