Golam Chowdhury v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

Golam Chowdhury v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

The tribunal correctly applied the law on reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability, found the claimant did not meet essential criteria for alternative roles, and determined that dismissal was a proportionate response to the respondent's legitimate aims. The appeal tribunal found no error of law or unreasonable findings in the tribunal's decision.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Golam Chowdhury; Respondent: Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Reasonable Adjustments, Discrimination Arising From Disability, Dismissal, Redeployment, Burden of Proof, Proportionality, Justification
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments Discrimination Arising From Disability Dismissal Redeployment Burden of Proof Proportionality +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Golam Chowdhury

Appellant

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant's disability
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal constituted discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010
  3. 3 Whether redeployment or extension of time for redeployment was a reasonable adjustment

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal correctly applied the law on reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability, found the claimant did not meet essential criteria for alternative roles, and determined that dismissal was a proportionate response to the respondent's legitimate aims. The appeal tribunal found no error of law or unreasonable findings in the tribunal's decision.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed