Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The respondents were represented by Ms R Best, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Crown Solicitor�s Office.
1.������ The title of the proceedings is amended to that now shown above, following on the decision of the tribunal to grant anonymity to the claimant, the second-named respondent, and the other witnesses in this case.
(i)������ that part of the claimant�s claim relating to the vetting process was presented within the prescribed time-limit;
(ii)����� the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and his claim is therefore dismissed; and
(iii)����� had we been satisfied that he did have a disability, we would have dismissed the substantive claim.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.