Case 2400458/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Parhiar v Vitality Corporate Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2400458/2022
- Decision date
- 7 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Parhiar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an oral judgment given by Employment Judge Phil Allen sitting alone at Manchester by CVP on 28 June 2023. The tribunal decided a preliminary disability issue in the claimant’s case against Vitality Corporate Services Limited. It found that Mr A Parhiar did have a disability at the relevant time because of depression.
The tribunal also found that Mr Parhiar had not proved that he had a disability at the relevant time because of diabetes or hypertension. As a result, the parts of his reasonable adjustments claim that depended on a provision, criterion or practice causing a disadvantage by reason of either or both of those conditions, but not depression, were dismissed. The extracted judgment records no monetary remedy or final compensation figure.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found the claimant did have a disability at the relevant time as a result of depression. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant did not prove disability at the relevant time as a result of diabetes or hypertension, and the parts of the reasonable adjustments claim relying on those conditions were dismissed. | Dismissed | 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.