Mr S Clarke v Smart Capital Technology Ltd: 1308544/2023 and 1300151/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 1308544/2023, 1300151/2024

Between

Mr S ClarkeClaimant

Smart Capital Technology LimitedRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Coghlin KC

In person for claimant

Mr D Jepps (instructed by solicitor) for respondent

Date 7 July 2025

JUDGMENT

Throughout the period from 2016 to 26 September 2023 inclusive the claimant was disabled by reason of ADHD and anxiety. Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Employment Judge Coghlin KC 6 November 2024 Case Numbers: 1308544/2023 and 1300151/2024 2 of 2 Case Number: 1308544/2023 and 1300151/2024 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS BETWEEN Claimant: Mr S Clarke and Respondent: Smart CT Limited SITTING AT: Birmingham ON: 7 – 11 April 2025 and 4 and 7 July 2025. Before: Employment Judge Smart Mr. D Spencer Mr P Tsouvallaris In public by hybrid hearing – the parties via CVP and the Tribunal in person. JUDGMENT On hearing from the Claimant and Mr. D Jepps (Solicitor) for the Respondent:

[1]The Claimant’s claims for detriment and dismissal under s39 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded and are dismissed because:a. The alleged prohibited conduct of direct disability discrimination allegations in breach of s13 Equality Act 2010 is not well founded.

b. The alleged prohibited conduct of unfavourable treatment allegations because of something arising in consequence of disability in breach of s15 Equality Act 2010 is not well founded.

c. The alleged prohibited conduct of a failure to make adjustments in breach of sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 is not well founded.

d. The alleged discriminatory constructive dismissal is not well founded. The Claimant resigned. He was not dismissed. Case Number: 1308544/2023 and 1300151/2024

[2]The Claimant’s claims for breach of contract at common law fail and are dismissed.

[3]The Claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction of wages in breach of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is not well founded and is dismissed.

[4]The Claimant’s claim for constructive unfair dismissal is not well founded and is dismissed. The Claimant resigned. He was not dismissed. Judgment approved by