Case 2303699/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Darling v Victa Railfreight Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303699/2022
- Decision date
- 12 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Darling
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard in public by CVP on 5 December 2023 before Employment Judge Tsamados sitting alone. The written record identifies the claimant, Mr J Darling, and the respondent, Victa Railfreight Ltd, and records that the claimant was represented by a solicitor and the respondent by a solicitor.
The only substantive finding set out in the supplied text is that, at the relevant times between January 2022 and 11 September 2022, the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of anxiety and depression. The written record says that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing.
The supplied record also states that written reasons will not be provided unless a party requested them at the hearing or makes a written request within 14 days of the written record being sent. No monetary award or further substantive outcome appears in the text supplied here.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The supplied written record states that, between January 2022 and 11 September 2022, the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of anxiety and depression. It does not record any substantive liability or remedy outcome in the text supplied here. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 Equality Act 2010
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.