Case 1302652/2022 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302652/2022
- Decision date
- 23 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with a one-day Public Preliminary Hearing and focused on whether the Claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. Other listed matters, including belief issues, amendment questions, jurisdiction, final issues and case management, were not determined at this hearing because there was insufficient time.
The tribunal found that the Claimant was disabled by reason of hypothyroidism from before March 2020 until April 2021, and by reason of chronic rhinosinusitis from November 2020 until May 2022. It found that anxiety disorder did not amount to a disability during the relevant period, noting limited evidence of substantial long-term adverse effects from that impairment.
The decision records that the effect of those findings on the Claimant's substantive case and the Response would need to be explored, if necessary, at the next Public Preliminary Hearing when defining and agreeing the final list of issues.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Public Preliminary Hearing decided only whether the Claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period. The tribunal found disability established for hypothyroidism until April 2021 and chronic rhinosinusitis from November 2020 to May 2022, but not for anxiety disorder. Substantive discrimination complaints were left for later case management and final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Herry
- Morris
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.