Case 2213191/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Linford of counsel For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2213191/2024
- Decision date
- 13 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms J Linford of counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held a public preliminary hearing to decide whether the claimant was a disabled person at the relevant times for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant relied on a mental health disorder and produced a disability impact statement and one letter described as a medical report, but the Tribunal noted limitations in that evidence, including that the letter related to an assessment in 2015 rather than the relevant period in 2023.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had not presented sufficient evidence to prove an adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities at the material times. It also found inconsistencies between the claimant's current account, the medical evidence relied on, and other parts of the pleadings.
The Tribunal concluded that the claimant did not have a disability within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times. It followed that the complaints of disability discrimination were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The preliminary hearing determined whether the claimant was disabled for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment states that the claimant's complaints of disability discrimination were dismissed because he did not have a disability at the relevant times. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
- substantial adverse effect
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.