Case 2401143/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Sara Crowley v Edge Hill University — 2023
- Case reference
- 2401143/2023
- Decision date
- 30 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Poynton Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Sara Crowley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the tribunal decided that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material time. On that basis, the claimant's complaints of disability discrimination were dismissed.
The judgment recorded that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal would proceed to a hearing on 13 December 2023 before a judge sitting alone. It also recorded that the claimant withdrew her application for an order under Rule 50 so that she could obtain further evidence and consider whether to renew it before the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material time, and dismissed the disability discrimination complaints. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaints were not determined in this judgment; they were recorded as proceeding to a hearing on 13 December 2023 before a judge sitting alone. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's application for an order under Rule 50 was withdrawn to allow her to obtain further evidence and consider whether to renew the application before the final hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
- Rule 50 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.