Claimant v Dover Harbour Board
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the complaint of indirect disability discrimination was not well-founded. The claimant did not satisfy the tribunal that the respondent applied a provision, criterion or practice that put the claimant and others sharing his disability at a particular disadvantage, or that such treatment was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The tribunal found that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was not well-founded. The claimant did not establish that the respondent had knowledge of his disability and failed to make adjustments that would have been reasonable in the circumstances, or that he was placed at a substantial disadvantage by any provision, criterion or practice applied by the respondent.
The tribunal found that the claim for wrongful dismissal was not well-founded. The claimant did not establish that he was dismissed in breach of contract, either because the dismissal was with proper notice or because there was sufficient cause to justify summary dismissal without notice.
Facts
Mr David Lane brought claims against Dover Harbour Board for indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and wrongful dismissal. The case was heard over five days in a hybrid hearing format before a full tribunal panel. Mr Lane represented himself while the respondent was represented by counsel.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all three claims brought by Mr Lane. The tribunal found that he had not established indirect disability discrimination, had not shown that reasonable adjustments were required or failed to be made, and had not proven wrongful dismissal.
Practical note
A claimant must establish the factual and legal basis for disability discrimination claims including knowledge of disability, substantial disadvantage, and the reasonableness of proposed adjustments, even when appearing as a litigant in person.
Case details
- Case number
- 2304399/2023
- Decision date
- 2 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No