Case 1600855/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Hughes v Enersys UK Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600855/2023
- Decision date
- 23 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harfield Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public before Employment Judge R Harfield. The respondent's application to strike out parts of the claim was refused. The judgment did not determine liability on the substantive claims or record any monetary award.
The tribunal found that from June 2016 onwards the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of his leg condition. It also found that between September 2015 and the completion of his studies in July or August 2021 he was a disabled person by reason of ADD when treated as a free-standing impairment.
In addition, the tribunal said that from September 2015 onwards the claimant had an impairment of ADD which formed part of his overall cumulative mental health disability, noting that the respondent had accepted the claimant was disabled by reason of anxiety and depression and that those impairments, if established, were likely to overlap. No remedy was assessed in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out parts of the claim and held that the claimant was a disabled person under section 6 Equality Act 2010 from June 2016 because of his leg condition. It also held that between September 2015 and July or August 2021 he was disabled by reason of ADD, or in any event that ADD formed part of his overall cumulative mental health disability. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 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.