Case 2305098/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305098/2021
- Decision date
- 15 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morton Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms T Chapman was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the time of the matters giving rise to the claim, by reason of dyspraxia. That finding is recorded in the judgment as a standalone point before disposal of the claim.
The only claim identified in the written judgment was direct disability discrimination. The tribunal recorded that this claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. No substantive liability findings on the discrimination allegation are set out in the written reasons.
The tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing on 15 December 2022. The written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of direct disability discrimination was 'dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant'; recorded here as withdrawn. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.