Case 2200189/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person (Interpreter: Ms E Madorskaya) For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200189/2020
- Decision date
- 6 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person (Interpreter: Ms E Madorskaya) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal, sitting at London Central before Employment Judge B Beyzade on 6 April 2022, dealt with the claimant's disability discrimination claim against Veolia ES (UK) Limited. The claimant appeared in person with an interpreter; the respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal's judgment states that the claimant's claim for disability discrimination was struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) and Rule 37(1)(e) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No substantive liability findings or remedy award are recorded in the written judgment. The note on the decision says reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal struck out the disability discrimination claim pursuant to Rule 37(1)(c) and Rule 37(1)(e) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(c)
- Rule 37(1)(e)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.