Case 1403647/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Oyuke v Hazlewoods LLP and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1403647/2023
- Decision date
- 5 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goraj Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J Oyuke
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment following a preliminary hearing in the claimant's disability discrimination proceedings. The Tribunal decided whether the claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the material time from 24 February 2020 to 29 September 2023.
The Tribunal found that the claimant was disabled during the material time by reason of chronic vasomotor rhinitis and empty nose syndrome. It found that those impairments had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the claimant's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant was disabled during the material time by reason of anxiety or work-related stress. It found that any substantial adverse effects from those impairments had not lasted 12 months and were not shown, judged during the material time, to be likely to last at least 12 months.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Reserved judgment following a preliminary hearing on disability status only. The Tribunal held that the claimant was disabled under section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of chronic vasomotor rhinitis and empty nose syndrome during the material time, but not by reason of anxiety/work-related stress. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- substantial adverse effect
- long-term adverse effect
- likely to last for at least 12 months
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.