Case 2309496/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Martey v Peninsula Heights Management Company Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2309496/2020
- Decision date
- 11 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Martey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 11 October 2022, Judge Brian Doyle sitting alone determined a preliminary disability issue in Mr F Martey's case against Peninsula Heights Management Company Ltd. The tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person by reason of a physical impairment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus from no earlier than 20 February 2022 and continuing up to and including the date of termination of employment.
The tribunal held that the substantial and long-term adverse effects of the impairment were on the normal day-to-day activities of urination and, from 18 May 2022, vision. It was not able to find, on the balance of probabilities, a substantial and long-term adverse effect in relation to the day-to-day activity of being voluntarily or involuntarily awake or asleep.
The claimant's application under rule 62 for written reasons was granted. The judgment states that the claim would proceed to final hearing in accordance with earlier case management orders and listing. No substantive liability findings or monetary remedy were decided in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found the claimant was a disabled person by reason of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus from no earlier than 20 February 2022 up to and including the date of termination of employment. | Upheld | 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.