Case 1602190/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Ashcroft v Sandfields Pharma Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602190/2023
- Decision date
- 15 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Brace REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Ashcroft
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public before Employment Judge R Brace on 31 January 2023. The tribunal identified the issue as disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and recorded that the claimant, Mrs K Ashcroft, was disabled at the relevant times because of anxiety under section 6 of the Act.
The tribunal further held that the claimant's complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 could therefore proceed. The judgment does not determine liability on those complaints; it is limited to the preliminary disability issue and whether the section 15 complaints were capable of continuing.
No remedy was assessed or awarded in this decision. The record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of anxiety, and that the complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 could proceed. The merits of those complaints were not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 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
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.