Case 1402651/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Nikolov v Sunseeker International Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 1402651/2019
- Decision date
- 2 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Craft Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Nikolov
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Southampton before Employment Judge Craft on 12 October 2020. The issue decided was whether Mr Nikolov was disabled within the meaning of s.6(1) Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time.
The tribunal found that he was not disabled for the purposes of the Act. As a result, his claims of disability discrimination under sections 15, 20 and 21 were dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
No remedy was awarded because the discrimination claims were dismissed at the preliminary stage.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing. The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of s.6(1) Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, so the claims under sections 15, 20 and 21 were dismissed. The judgment text refers once to the Equality Act 2020, but the disability definition is stated under the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.6(1) Equality Act 2010
- sections 15, 20 and 21 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.