Case 1400860/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Mills v First Greater Western Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400860/2020
- Decision date
- 5 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Mills
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal decided, at a preliminary stage, that the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. On that basis, her disability discrimination complaints under sections 13, 19 and 20 of the Act were dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the victimisation complaint identified at paragraph 24.1 of the List of Issues dated 4 October 2021, stating that it had no reasonable prospects of success under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules.
The judgment expressly recorded that the remainder of the claimant's claims were not determined in this decision and would proceed in accordance with the Order and Case Summary of the same date.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, so her disability discrimination complaints under ss. 13, 19 and 20 were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The complaint of victimisation in paragraph 24.1 of the List of Issues dated 4 October 2021 was dismissed under rule 37 as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- ss. 13, 19 and 20 Equality Act 2010
- rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules
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.