Case 1302839/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1302839/2021
- Decision date
- 24 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell. Case
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing, not a final merits hearing. Employment Judge Gaskell found that the claimant had established disability for Equality Act 2010 purposes from 1 December 2019 until 28 February 2021, on the basis of depression and anxiety. That finding resolved the preliminary disability issue so the case could proceed.
The tribunal also granted permission for the claimant to rely on her further particulars of claim dated 28 March 2024, which were to stand as the definitive statement of her case. The respondent's applications for strike out or, alternatively, a deposit order were not pursued at the hearing.
No substantive discrimination, unfair dismissal, or remedy issues were decided in this judgment. The tribunal directed that a definitive list of issues should be agreed, listed the matter for a further preliminary case management hearing on 7 June 2024, and indicated that witness details, availability, and the question of judicial mediation would then be addressed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found that from 1 December 2019 until 28 February 2021 the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of depression and anxiety. No substantive liability findings were made at this hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Equality Act 2010 disability definition
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.