Case 1800174/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person with Mr D Haggarty For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800174/2020
- Decision date
- 29 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- By CVP
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person with Mr D Haggarty For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing conducted by CVP on 29 June 2020 before Employment Judge Davies. The claimant appeared in person with Mr D Haggarty, and the respondent was represented by Mr Boyd of counsel. The tribunal recorded that it had an agreed file of documents and the claimant’s disability impact statement, and that the parties did not object to the hearing being conducted by video.
The only substantive issue determined in the written record was whether the claimant met the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that he did, at all relevant times, because of anxiety, depression, PTSD and associated migraines.
No monetary remedy was recorded in this decision. The written record also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of sending the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found that, at all relevant times, the claimant met the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010 because of anxiety/depression/PTSD and associated migraines. | Upheld | Disability | — |
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.