Case 1600163/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs C Clark v Dr Kumutasa and Dr Williams (a partnership) t/a Gardden Road Surgery RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023

Case reference: 1600163/2023
Decision date: 26 September 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge S Moore Appearances
Venue: By video

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs C Clark

Respondent

Dr Kumutasa and Dr Williams (a partnership) t/a Gardden Road Surgery RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing held by video on 20 September 2023, Employment Judge S Moore recorded a judgment by consent in which Mrs C Clark was found to be a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time. The record identifies the hearing as a preliminary hearing and notes that the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by a legal consultant.

The extracted judgment does not record any substantive findings on liability for discrimination, dismissal, wages, or contract claims. It resolves the preliminary disability-status issue in the claimant's favour and does not set out any remedy or monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Judgment by consent at a preliminary hearing. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time. No substantive liability findings or remedy were set out in the extracted text.	Upheld	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.