Case 2302227/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In person (with her mother for support) For the v Mr Conley – Solicitor — 2023

Case reference: 2302227/2022
Decision date: 17 November 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Martin Appearances
Venue: London South

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person (with her mother for support) For the

Respondent

Mr Conley – Solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant brought disability discrimination claims. The respondent conceded that she was disabled in relation to spina bifida, but did not concede disability in relation to a mental impairment affecting her cognitive abilities, so the hearing addressed that issue.

The tribunal found that the claimant had a mental impairment affecting her cognitive functioning caused by hydrocephalus. It accepted that the impairment affected normal day-to-day activities, including personal care, making a cup of tea, cooking, and understanding new processes, and that the effects were more than minor or trivial.

The tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person by reason of her cognitive impairments at the relevant times. The judgment did not decide the substantive discrimination allegations or make any monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The judgment only determines that the claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of s6 Equality Act 2010 in relation to cognitive impairments; it does not determine the substantive disability discrimination claims.	Other	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

9 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.