Case 2202094/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Cosmin Sabau v RH45 HR Limited Heard: by CVP in London Central — 2025
- Case reference
- 2202094/2024
- Decision date
- 14 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Cosmin Sabau
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the matter by CVP in London Central on 7 May 2025 before Employment Judge Codd. The claimant was Mr Cosmin Sabau and the respondent was RH45 HR Limited.
The tribunal found that, at the relevant times, Mr Sabau was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of a depression and anxiety disorder. That finding was dispositive of the disability-based claims.
The claim of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability was dismissed. The harassment claim related to disability was also dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that, at the relevant times, the claimant was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of a depression and anxiety disorder. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claim related to disability was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.