Case 8001170/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Allen v Represented by: Mr L Anderson , Solicitor Aegon UK Corporate Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001170/2024
- Decision date
- 10 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sutherland
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Allen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 31 October 2025, the tribunal narrowed the live issues to two complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 Equality Act 2010. It recorded that earlier complaints were withdrawn and that there were no live complaints of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination or protected disclosure detriment. The claimant's disability status was not in dispute, arising from multiple sclerosis with symptoms including PoTS and coronary artery spasm.
On complaint no. 2, concerning training on Dragon software, the tribunal read the pleadings together and treated the relevant physical feature as the claimant's laptop computer. It identified the alleged disadvantage as difficulty reading and typing on the laptop without Dragon and training, and the proposed adjustment as provision of Dragon software and training. The tribunal noted contemporaneous material suggesting training materials were provided on 18 April 2024, that the claimant said on 21 May 2024 he was reviewing Dragon training, and that he said on 28 May 2024 he had learned as much as he needed to use Dragon. On that basis, it held the complaint was stateable and had more than a merely fanciful prospect of success, so strike out and deposit were refused.
On complaint no. 3, concerning seating closer to the toilets, the tribunal treated the relevant physical feature as the distance from the claimant's desk to the toilets. It identified the alleged disadvantage as difficulty reaching the toilets because of mobility issues, with toilet-related accidents, and the proposed adjustment as moving the claimant to a desk closer to the toilets. It again held that the complaint had more than a merely fanciful prospect of success, so the respondent's strike out, failing which deposit, application was refused for this complaint as well.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The respondent's application for strike out, failing which deposit, was refused in relation to this reasonable-adjustment complaint. No merits determination was made. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The respondent's application for strike out, failing which deposit, was refused in relation to this reasonable-adjustment complaint. No merits determination was made. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Rule 37(1) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Rule 39(1) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Bolch v Chipman [2004] IRLR 140
- Anyanwu and Ors v South Bank Students’ Union and Ors [2001] IRLR 305
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] ICR 1126
- Tayside Public Transport Company Ltd (t/a Travel Dundee) v Reilly [2012] Scot CS CSIH 46
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA UKEAT/0041/16/DM
- Ahir v British Airways Plc [2017] EWCA Civ 1392
- Wright v Nipponkoa Insurance (Europe) Ltd UKEAT/0113/14
- Hemdan v Ishmail [2017] IRLR 228
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.