Claimant v Premex Service Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal heard the case over three days and dismissed the claim of direct disability discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010, finding that the respondent had not treated the claimant less favourably because of her disability.
The tribunal dismissed the claim under s.15 Equality Act 2010, concluding that the claimant had not been subjected to unfavourable treatment arising from her disability, or if she had, it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The tribunal found the dismissal to be fair under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996, concluding that the respondent had a fair reason for dismissal and acted reasonably in treating it as sufficient reason to dismiss.
The tribunal dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim, finding that the respondent had not breached the claimant's contract in the manner of dismissal or had lawful grounds for summary dismissal.
Facts
Mrs Nelson-Murray brought claims against Premex Service Limited alleging direct disability discrimination, unfavourable treatment arising from disability, unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal. She was supported by her husband at the hearing and represented herself. The case was heard over three days before a full tribunal panel.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all four claims brought by Mrs Nelson-Murray. The tribunal found no direct disability discrimination, no unfavourable treatment under s.15 Equality Act, and concluded that both the unfair and wrongful dismissal claims were not upheld. Reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Practical note
A claimant bringing multiple disability and dismissal claims must present sufficient evidence to establish both less favourable treatment and that the reason for dismissal was disability-related or otherwise unfair.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1802930/2024
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No