Case 2303290/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hills v Arriva Rail London Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303290/2020
- Decision date
- 10 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Hills
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis written record determines a preliminary disability issue in Mr S Hills' case against Arriva Rail London Limited. Employment Judge Andrews recorded that the claimant was disabled at the relevant time by reason of osteoarthritis in his right big toe.
The judgment does not determine liability for the substantive claims. It states that whether the respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the claimant was disabled remained an issue to be decided at the final hearing.
No remedy, compensation, or final outcome on the merits is recorded in this decision. The tribunal sat with Employment Judge Andrews sitting alone.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was disabled at the relevant time by reason of osteoarthritis in his right big toe. The record states that whether the respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of that disability remained to be determined at the final hearing. | Other | 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.