Case 1600583/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Traynor v ProCare Wales Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600583/2018
- Decision date
- 19 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
- Venue
- Prestatyn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Traynor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was at Prestatyn on 15 November 2019 before Employment Judge S Jenkins. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so the published record is limited to the formal decision and does not set out fuller reasons unless separately requested.
The tribunal found that Mr P Traynor was, at the relevant times, disabled for the purposes of section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010. That is the only substantive finding recorded in the written decision.
No separate finding of discrimination, remedy, compensation, or dismissal outcome appears in the published text. On the material provided, the decision is limited to the preliminary disability status issue.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written record only records a finding that the claimant was disabled for the purposes of section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times. It does not record any substantive liability finding or remedy. | 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.