Case 1405113/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person. The v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1405113/2020
- Decision date
- 20 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goraj Representation
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person. The
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Goraj on 6 September 2021. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The tribunal recorded the respondent's concession that the claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010 in respect of eye impairments from March 2015, chronic migraines from 11 December 2018, a musculo-skeletal condition from March 2015, and anxiety and depression from February 2019.
The tribunal did not determine the merits of the discrimination complaint at this hearing. It recorded that any issues relating to statutory time limits under section 123 Equality Act 2010 would be decided at the final hearing. The matter remained listed for a five-day final hearing on 21 to 25 March 2022, with a further case management preliminary hearing on 22 February 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | At this preliminary hearing the respondent conceded that the claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010 in respect of eye impairments from March 2015, chronic migraines from 11 December 2018, a musculo-skeletal condition from March 2015, and anxiety and depression from February 2019. Any issues about the application of the statutory time limits under section 123 Equality Act 2010 were left to be determined at the final hearing; no liability decision was made. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 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.