Case 1804984/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Wood v Silver Lining Piercing and Jewellery Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1804984/2022
- Decision date
- 27 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Armstrong Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Wood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this case management hearing on 24 April 2023, Employment Judge K Armstrong found that Miss C Wood was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of anxiety from 1 February 2022 and continuing to the date of the hearing. That finding resolved a preliminary issue only; the claimant’s substantive claims were listed to proceed to a further hearing starting on 5 September 2023.
The tribunal also considered the correct identity of the respondent. Ms Clancy said the claimant had been employed by Silver Lining Sheff Ltd, rather than Silver Lining Piercing and Jewellery Ltd, because Silver Lining Sheff Ltd operated the Sheffield site and the claimant’s contract and payslip would show that employer. The claimant was uncertain on that point. The tribunal was not satisfied to amend the respondent’s name without further evidence, so it added the issue of correct respondent identity to the list of matters for determination at the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 due to anxiety from 1 February 2022 and continuing to the hearing, but it did not determine the substantive discrimination claims at this judgment. | 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.
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.