Case 1304917/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Nagle v Lighting Consultants Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1304917/2020
- Decision date
- 30 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Meichen Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Nagle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Birmingham via CVP on 24 November 2020, Employment Judge Meichen determined a preliminary issue in the claimant's case against Lighting Consultants Ltd. The judgment records that the claimant, Mr C Nagle, was disabled within the meaning of s. 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time.
The tribunal found that the disability arose because of Herpex Simplex Keratatis and migraines. The material time for the purpose of the claim was April 2019 to January 2020.
The written record does not set out any substantive merits findings, liability conclusions on the underlying claims, or any remedy award. It states that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled within the meaning of s. 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time because of Herpex Simplex Keratatis and migraines. The material time was April 2019 to January 2020. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.