Case 1601128/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Jones (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 1601128/2017
- Decision date
- 18 September 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery Appearances
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr B Jones (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on a single issue: whether the claimant was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the respondent’s redundancy exercise, identified as the period from June 2017 to 9 August 2017. The respondent accepted that the claimant’s condition was long-term and that it had actual knowledge of it; the only disputed question was whether the impairment had a substantial effect on normal day-to-day activities.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had suffered a brain aneurism on 1 January 2017, followed by a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage, emergency surgery on 2 January, an induced coma, seven weeks in hospital, and four surgical procedures including surgery following a pulmonary embolism. It found that, after discharge, she experienced ongoing headaches, breathlessness, weakness in her hand and legs, difficulty walking, bending, lifting and carrying, and memory and concentration problems. The tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence, together with occupational health, GP and consultant reports, that she could not properly engage with community neuro services and that her symptoms continued through the material period.
The tribunal rejected the respondent’s case that the claimant’s own account was not supported by the medical evidence. It found that the treating records did not show the absence of disability, noting that some records were written for discharge or clinical purposes, and it accepted that the medical evidence as a whole supported substantial adverse effects. It concluded that throughout June to August 2017 the claimant’s impairment substantially affected both her cognitive abilities and her physical ability to lift, carry and walk, so she was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
No remedy was determined at this hearing. The tribunal directed that the case be listed for a four-day hearing on liability and, if necessary, remedy, and gave case management directions for exchange of schedules, documents and witness statements.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal held that the claimant was disabled within s.6 Equality Act 2010 during the material period, June 2017 to August 2017. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- substantial adverse effect
- more than minor or trivial
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
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.