Case 1404378/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Iain Chedburn v Emily Estate (UK) Limited T/A The Newt in Somerset — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404378/2023
- Decision date
- 20 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Iain Chedburn
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written record of the 4 July 2024 hearing before Employment Judge J Bax states that, at all times material to the claim, Mr Iain Chedburn was disabled by reason of a physical impairment, namely recurrent corneal epithelial erosion syndrome. The decision record identifies the hearing as having been conducted by video and records that the judgment was given orally at the hearing.
The written record does not set out any further liability findings or any remedy. It also states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written record states only that, at all times material to the claim, the claimant was disabled by reason of recurrent corneal epithelial erosion syndrome. It does not set out any broader liability outcome or any remedy in the written record, and it notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.