Case 1300462/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Mrs S Furber (Director) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1300462/2020
- Decision date
- 16 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Birmingham on 16 December 2020 before Employment Judge Gaskell, the tribunal found that Mr E Rogers was an employee of Rapid Environmental Pest Control Solutions Limited from 1 October 2017 until 19 August 2019 at the latest. It also found that from 19 August 2019 until 27 November 2019 he was an employee of Rapid Environmental (UK) Limited following a relevant transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.
The tribunal further found that, at all times material to the claim, Mr Rogers was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of bipolar disorder. The written record notes that the tribunal gave reasons orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No substantive merits decision or monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary hearing only. The judgment determined employment status and disability status, but it did not adjudicate a substantive claim outcome on the merits. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.230(1) ERA 1996
- Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.