Case 1401357/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. S Shepherd, Counsel For the v Mr. R Prais, Solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401357/2019
- Decision date
- 30 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. S Shepherd, Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was conducted remotely by telephone on 30 April 2020 before Employment Judge Rayner. The tribunal recorded that the claimant, Laura Hancock, was represented by Mr. S Shepherd and the respondent, Bersted Green Surgery, by Mr. R Prais. It also noted that the hearing was by consent and that a face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable.
The only substantive finding in the judgment was that the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of bronchiectasis at the material times. The judgment does not determine liability for the underlying disability discrimination complaint.
The tribunal stated that the claimant’s disability discrimination claim would be set down for a final hearing and that case management orders would be sent separately. No remedy was assessed or awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary judgment only; the tribunal found the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of bronchiectasis at the material times, and the disability discrimination claim was listed for a final hearing. No final liability or remedy decision was made. | Other | 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.