Case 2206612/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Ms. I. Nikopoulou (2) Mr. I. Okorodudu v The Institute of Physics — 2023
- Case reference
- 2206612/2022
- Decision date
- 2 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Isaacson Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Ms. I. Nikopoulou (2) Mr. I. Okorodudu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short judgment on a preliminary disability issue for Ms. Nikopoulou. The tribunal recorded that multiple sclerosis is a deemed disability under Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Equality Act 2010, so the main dispute was the relevant date of diagnosis and whether she was disabled at the time of the alleged acts. The claimant gave evidence that symptoms began in February 2020, that she was told she had clinically isolated syndrome in August 2020, and that she experienced further symptoms including partial blindness in January 2021 and mobility problems in May 2021.
The tribunal relied on two letters from Professor Ciccarelli and the claimant's oral evidence. It accepted that the first claimant had relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and concluded that she was diagnosed around January or May 2021 and certainly by November 2021. It therefore found that she was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. The judgment did not determine any discrimination liability, unfair dismissal issue, or monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found that the first claimant was a disabled person under section 6 EqA 2010 at the time of the events complained of. No compensation or final liability decision was determined in this judgment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 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.