The University of Law Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant, a self-represented lecturer, brought three claims against The University of Law Limited: one for disability discrimination and two near-identical claims for unfair dismissal. At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of anxiety and depression, struck out the two unfair dismissal claims under Rule 40(4) for failure to pay an ordered deposit, and refused the claimant's application to amend his claim to include victimisation complaints.

The claims were struck out under Rule 40(4) because the claimant failed to pay the £50 deposit that had been ordered on 04/09/2025 by the specified deadline of 31 October 2025. Additionally, the tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, as he failed to provide sufficient evidence including relevant GP medical records to support his claim of disability arising from anxiety and depression.

• •Whether claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of s6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of anxiety and depression
• •Failure to make reasonable adjustments
• •Whether claimant should be granted permission to amend claim to include victimisation under s27 Equality Act 2010
• •Whether duplicate unfair dismissal claims should be struck out
• •Deposit non-payment under Rule 40(4)

Case Numbers: 6003399/2025, 6004735/2025, 2400490/2025 1 of 14 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr. R Owino Respondent: The University of Law Limited Heard at: Manchester (in private by video) On: 02/02/26 Before: EJ Shergill (sitting alone) Representatives For the claimant: in person For the respondent: Miss Stroud, counsel PRELIMINARY HEARING RESERVED JUDGMENT The judgment of the tribunal is that:- i) The claimant was not at the material times a disabled person within the meaning of s6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of anxiety and depression. ii) The claims of unfair dismissal in 2400490/2025 and 6004735/2025 are struck out under Rule 40(4). iii) The claimant’s application to amend his claim to include detriment as a result of qualifying disclosures as defined in section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, is refused. REASONS Introduction (1) This preliminary hearing was listed following an initial preliminary hearing on 04/09/25 before EJ McDonald. The case appeared in my list as a full day’s hearing on 02/02/26 in order to consider four specific matters. These matters were in relation to: Case Numbers: 6003399/2025, 6004735/2025, 2400490/2025 2 of 14 • whether the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of anxiety and depression at all or any time relevant to the claims made; • whether the claimant should be granted permission to amend his claim to add or substitute complaints of victimisation in breach of s.27 of the Equality Act 2010; • whether either claim 2400490/2025 or claim 6004735/2025 should be dismissed on the basis it is a duplicate claim and, if so, which one; and • to set a date for the final hearing of the case and make case management orders setting out the steps the parties must take to prepare for that final hearing. (2) The hearing took p…