Case 8001393/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Jokiel v STEF Langdons Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001393/2025
- Decision date
- 29 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Neilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Jokiel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge S Neilson on disability status only. The claimant, Mr A Jokiel, had brought claims including constructive unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, disability discrimination, race discrimination and flexible working, but the hearing determined only whether the two alleged impairments met the section 6 Equality Act 2010 definition. The tribunal applied the statutory test, the Goodwin v Patent Office four questions, and authorities including Cruickshank on the relevant time for assessment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person under section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period in respect of diverticulosis, haemorrhoids, colonic polyp and/or diarrhoea. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found the claimant was a disabled person under section 6 Equality Act 2010 from October 2022 to December 2023 only in respect of a recurring discharge from a groin scar; it was not accepted as a disability for the remainder of employment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 212(1) Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 5(1) Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302
- Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd [2002] ICR 729
- Millar v Inland Revenue Commissioners 2006 IRLR 112
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle [2009] UKHL 37
- McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] IRLR 227
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.