Case 2217983/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2217983/2024
- Decision date
- 13 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was listed to decide whether the Claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. The Tribunal identified the relevant period as 11 May 2022 to 22 February 2024 and considered the Claimant's asserted impairments of depression, anxiety, low mood, stroke, and any other physical or mental impairment.
The Tribunal found that the evidence about neurological symptoms was inconsistent and that there was no reliable evidence of adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities which were more than minor during the relevant period. It found that the Claimant had not had a stroke and had no neurological impairment during the relevant period.
The Tribunal also found that the evidence about depression, anxiety, low mood, or other mental impairment before October 2024 did not establish disability during the relevant period. It concluded that the Claimant was not a disabled person at any of the relevant times, and gave case management directions for remaining complaints to be decided at the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | At a public preliminary hearing the Tribunal decided that the Claimant was not a disabled person by reason of stroke, depression, anxiety, low mood, or other physical or mental impairment at any time from 11 May 2022 to 22 February 2024. The judgment recorded disability discrimination complaints but did not expressly dismiss them in this judgment; it also recorded that other complaints would be decided at a final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 12 Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on Matters to be Taken into Account in Determining Questions Relating to the Definition of Disability (2011)
- Cruickshanks v VAW Motorcrest Limited
- Goodwin v Post Office
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- Walker v SITA Information Networking Computing Ltd
- Chacon Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA
- Paterson v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Primaz v Carl Room Restaurants Ltd t/a McDonald's Restaurants Ltd
- Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall
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.