A vegan who avoids taking the bus in order to avoid accidental crashes with insects or birds has today won a landmark case in which a judge rules ethical veganism is a philosophical belief and therefore protected by law.

The groundbreaking case was brought by Jordi Casamitjana, who said he was sacked by the League Against Cruel Sports after raising concerns that its pension fund was being invested into companies involved in animal testing.

The 55-year-old, from London, claims he was unfairly disciplined for making this disclosure and that the decision to dismiss him was because of his philosophical belief in ethical veganism.

In his witness statement he claims to go as far as avoiding holding onto leather straps or sitting on leather seats, and prefers to walk rather than catch a bus in case the vehicle kills a fly while on its journey.

At the tribunal in Norwich today, judge Robin Postle ruled ethical veganism satisfies the tests required for it to be a philosophical belief and is therefore protected under the Equality Act 2010.

Jordi Casamitjana, who said he was sacked by the League Against Cruel Sports after raising concerns that its pension fund was being invested into companies involved in animal testing

What is the difference between ethical veganism and dietary veganism? Dietary vegans and ethical vegans both eat a plant-based diet, avoiding meat and other foods derived from animals such as dairy products. However ethical vegans also try to exclude all forms of animal exploitation outside what they eat. This includes not wearing clothing made of wool or leather and not using products tested on animals. Advertisement

He also ruled that Mr Casamitjana, 55, who lives in London, adheres to the belief of ethical veganism.

For a belief to be protected under the Act, it must meet a series of tests including being worthy of respect in a democratic society, not being incompatible with human dignity and not conflicting with fundamental rights of others.

The ruling means that ethical vegans are entitled to protection from discrimination.

In his ruling, Judge Postle said ethical veganism was 'important' and 'worthy' of respect in a democratic society.

He said: 'I am satisfied overwhelmingly that ethical veganism does constitute a philosophical belief and is a protected characteristic.'

Speaking after the ruling, Mr Casamitjana said: 'I am extremely happy. I didn't expect a judgment today.

'This is a very important ruling for vegans everywhere in the world.

'That will inspire other vegans in other countries that don't have that protection to develop cases that will lead to that protection.'

Jordi Casamitjana (front right) leaving the Employment Tribunal in Norwich today

How is veganism protected under the Equality Act? The Equality Act 2010 spells out nine 'protected characteristics' which it is illegal to discriminate against. As well as religious belief, they are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity, race, sex and sexual orientation. If a belief meets the criteria it is illegal to discriminate against someone because they hold that belief. The law applies to a wide range of fields including employment, education and housing. The legislation says that a philosophical belief must be: Genuinely held

A belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available

A belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour

Attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance

Be worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others Advertisement

Dietary vegans and ethical vegans both eat a plant-based diet, but ethical vegans also try to exclude all forms of animal exploitation including not wearing clothing made of wool or leather and not using products tested on animals.

Judge Postle, who said he had read much of the written statements on Thursday, said he will provide a full judgment at a later date.

He said: 'It [ethical veganism] is not just about choices of diet, but it is about what that person wears, and all aspects of their life seem to be governed by ethical veganism.'

The tribunal will now determine whether The League Against Cruel Sports treated Mr Casamitjana less favourably because of his belief in ethical veganism. The next hearing will be on February 20.

Mr Wyborn said: 'The league is now looking ahead to the substantive hearing in this case and to addressing the reason for Mr Casamitjana's dismissal, which it maintains was due to his misconduct and not the belief he holds.'

Mr Casamitjana said his belief in ethical veganism could be seen in 'almost every aspect' of his life.

Speaking after the ruling, he said: 'This is a very important ruling for vegans everywhere in the world. That will inspire other vegans in other countries that don't have that protection to develop cases that will lead to that protection.'

Mr Daly said the judgment 'confirms' that Mr Casamitjana's belief in ethical veganism is protected in law.

He added: 'It opens the door to many other ethical vegans who may experience discrimination in employment, education, goods and services or healthcare.'

Other high-profile claims of discrimination have found their way into employment tribunals in recent years. They include BA worker Nadia Eweida, (left) who was sent home for wearing a crucifix; and GP Dr Keith Wolverson (right) who asked a woman to remove her burka

Recent cases fought under the 2010 Equality Act include a 21-year-old interior design graduate who won a £3,000 payout from bosses after they were found to have discriminated against her for being too young.

Other high-profile claims of discrimination have found their way into employment tribunals in recent years.

Last year, a GP has revealed he planned to quit medicine over an investigation by the doctors watchdog into claims he 'discriminated' against a Muslim woman for asking her to remove her veil.

Dr Keith Wolverson said he 'politely' asked the woman to take off the garment for patient safety reasons during a consultation last year because he was unable to hear her explain her sick daughter's symptoms.

He was then 'deeply upset' when last week he received a letter from the General Medical Council, the professional regulator, informing him that he was subject to an inquiry over allegations of racial discrimination which could result in him being struck off.

And in 2013, a British Airways employee won a landmark legal battle to wear a crucifix at work after she was sent home for wearing one.

Nadia Eweida won a claim of religious discrimination against BA in the European Court of Human Rights in 2013 after being sent home for wearing a silver crucifix around her neck.

Her right to profess her religious belief should have trumped the airline's powers to mould its image by imposing petty uniform rules on its staff, European judges declared.