Case 2201378/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Heather Platt (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201378/2019
- Decision date
- 6 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Heather Platt (counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing heard at London Central on 6 December 2019 before Employment Judge Gordon. The issue decided in the extracted judgment was whether the claimant, Mrs E Aylott, had a disability for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that she did have a disability within the meaning of section 6 throughout the whole period of her employment with the respondent, BPP University Ltd, and for many years before that employment began. The judgment states that reasons for the decision were given in the case management notes.
No substantive liability findings on the underlying discrimination complaint, and no monetary award, are contained in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal held that the claimant satisfied the definition of disability under section 6 Equality Act 2010 over the whole period of her employment and for many years before employment began. | Upheld | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.