British Telecommunications plc

Case Summary

The tribunal determined that the claimant met the definition of a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010 from 18 November 2024 onwards. However, the claims of unfair dismissal and breach of contract were dismissed as the claimant remained employed by the respondent at the time of the claims, and the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear such claims while employment subsists. A standalone GDPR breach claim was also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The claimant's claims of unfair dismissal and breach of contract were dismissed because she remained employed by the respondent at the time of the claims, and both claims can only be brought after employment has ended. The tribunal also has no jurisdiction to hear a standalone claim for breach of GDPR.

• •Whether claimant meets definition of disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
• •Whether claimant's claim of unfair dismissal can proceed when claimant remains employed
• •Whether tribunal has jurisdiction to hear breach of contract claim when employment subsists
• •Whether tribunal has jurisdiction to hear standalone claim for breach of GDPR

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss S Atim Respondent: British Telecommunications plc PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard at: East London Hearing Centre (by remote video) On: Thursday 12 March 2026 Before: Employment Judge Shore Representation For the Claimant: In Person For the Respondent: Ms A Jervis, Solicitor JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that: - (1) The claimant met the definition of disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 from 18 November 2024 and has continued to do so for the period covered by the claims in this case. (2) The claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal under is dismissed as the claimant has not been dismissed. (3) The claimant’s claim of breach of contract under Article 3 of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 is dismissed as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear it because the claimant is still employed by the respondent. (4) The claimant made a free-standing claim for a breach of the GRDP. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear that claim, and it is dismissed. 2 REASONS The Hearing 1. This hearing followed a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge King on 8 September 2025. EJ King set this hearing up to: 1.1 Determine whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time; and 1.2 Further case manage the case and list a final hearing, if appropriate, including the clarification of the claims and the list of issues being agreed as required. 2. Before the hearing, I read the Tribunal’s digital file. I also read the claimant’s document dated 6 October 2025 that set out her further information as ordered by EJ King and contained her impact statement, the claimant’s revised Schedule of Loss dated 5 March 2026. 3. I received the respondent’s bundle of documents for the hearing and an inde…