Case 1401112/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Mr T Woodward, Solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401112/2021
- Decision date
- 21 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Dr Isabella Camburn, was employed by Celtic Equine Veterinary Practice Limited from 1 February 2020 and began actual work on 1 June 2020 after a period of furlough. She brought a disability discrimination claim based on alleged disability-related treatment connected with the extension of her probationary period on 7 August 2020 and her dismissal on 21 December 2020, relying on vestibular oscillopsia. The judgment also notes a separate contractual notice pay claim, which was to be listed for a later hearing and was not determined in this decision.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant experienced symptoms including disorientation, fatigue and visual disturbance, and that she had been absent from work and signed off on sick leave. It found that the symptoms had some impact on everyday activities such as walking, shopping and sleeping, and that the claimant had to adjust how she carried out activities and became increasingly fatigued. However, at the material times there was no clear diagnosis or prognosis, and the medical evidence available in December 2020 did not say how long the condition or its effects would last.
Applying the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability and the cited authorities, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not proved that any substantial adverse effect was long term at either material date. It found that, on 7 August 2020 and again on 21 December 2020, there was no evidence that the condition was likely to last 12 months or for the rest of her life, and no contemporaneous evidence showing a lifelong condition with a substantial adverse effect for a further period of at least six months. The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Act and dismissed the disability discrimination claims. No remedy was awarded on the claims determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant alleged disability discrimination arising from the extension of her probationary period and her dismissal. The tribunal found that she was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the material times, so the disability discrimination claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Equality Act 2010 disability definition
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- Leonard v Southern Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce
- Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Elliott v Dorset County Council
- Anwar v Tower Hamlets College
- Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd
- McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.