Case 1801927/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Ford v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1801927/2019
- Decision date
- 16 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Ford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether the claimant met the definition of disability under section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to a back condition. It reviewed the claimant's evidence, GP evidence, occupational health reports, and submissions from the respondent.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence about the onset and effects of the condition. It found that her back condition severely curtailed her day-to-day activities in summer 2018, recurred in January 2019, and continued to require treatment including physiotherapy and other measures.
Taking account of the statutory guidance on treatment and recurring or fluctuating effects, the tribunal found that before January 2019 the condition was not shown to be long-term, but by the second recurrence in January 2019 substantial adverse effects could well have been expected to last beyond a year or recur after a year. The claimant was therefore found to be a disabled person from 2 January 2019.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment determined a preliminary issue only: the claimant was a disabled person from 2 January 2019. It did not determine the merits of the disability discrimination allegations, including alleged failures to make reasonable adjustments or harassment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 6(1) Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Part 1 paragraph 2 Equality Act 2010
- section 212(1) Equality Act 2010
- Equality Act 2010 guidance paragraphs B12, B13 and C5
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.