Case 2201155/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Ford v Ingenica Solutions Ltd; and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201155/2023
- Decision date
- 17 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr D Ford
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined a preliminary issue of whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. It found that he was disabled by reason of Functional Neurological Disorder from no later than 3 March 2022 to 11 November 2022, and by reason of stress and/or anxiety from April 2021 to 11 November 2022.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence as credible and measured, and found it consistent with medical evidence, occupational health material, and his impact statement. It rejected the respondent's submissions that the claimant lacked credibility, that his stress and anxiety were only a reaction to adverse life events falling short of impairment, and that any qualifying FND impairment had ceased by June 2022.
No findings were made on the underlying alleged discriminatory acts, and no remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Open preliminary hearing determined only whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the material time; liability for the pleaded discriminatory acts was not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 1(5) Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on the Definition of Disability
- Adiremi [2013] ICR 591
- Morgan v Staffordshire University
- Herry v Dudley [2016] UKEAT/0100/16
- J v DLA Piper
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
- Open official judgment 4 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.