Case 1600280/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Newman v St Vincent’s Community Support Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600280/2019
- Decision date
- 3 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Newman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary judgment at Cardiff on 31 January 2020. The tribunal determined that Mr L Newman is disabled for the purposes of section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010. On that basis, it recorded that his disability discrimination claim could proceed to a final hearing.
The judgment did not determine the merits of the disability discrimination complaint and did not record any remedy. It was a short oral-reasons decision and the written record states that further reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary judgment only. The tribunal held that the claimant is disabled for the purposes of section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010, so the disability discrimination claim could proceed to a final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6(1) 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.