Case 2302252/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Graves v Hilton Nursing Partners Ltd Heard at London South by video — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302252/2024
- Decision date
- 5 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Graves
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether the claimant had a disability within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the time of the events in the claim. The claimant relied on migraines and anxiety and depression; the judgment records findings on migraines and depression.
The tribunal accepted that migraines affected the claimant's ability to drive, work, carry out household tasks, focus, sleep and maintain her routine. It also accepted that depression affected concentration, confidence, sleep, social interaction, routines and social activities. The tribunal found that each impairment separately had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing judgment on whether the claimant had a disability for Equality Act 2010 purposes. The tribunal found migraines and depression each met the statutory test; it did not determine the substantive discrimination allegations or remedy. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
- s212 Equality Act 2010
- schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on the definition of disability
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.