Case 2402629/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Farah v Spire Healthcare Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402629/2021
- Decision date
- 28 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms F Farah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered whether the claimant was disabled under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period of 17 November 2020 to 24 November 2020. The claimant relied on auditory processing disorder or significant weaknesses in auditory working memory, supported by two psychologist reports and her own evidence.
The Tribunal accepted that the claimant had significant weaknesses in auditory working memory, but found that any adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities was no more than minor or trivial. It found that the claimant had not shown a substantial adverse effect in relation to verbal communication, understanding written information on first reading, or writing information down quickly.
Because the claimant had not established that she was disabled for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 in the relevant period, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the disability discrimination complaints. Those complaints were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The preliminary hearing determined whether the claimant was disabled under section 6 Equality Act 2010 for the relevant period. The Tribunal found she was not disabled and therefore had no jurisdiction to consider the disability discrimination complaints, which were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- substantial adverse effect
- normal day-to-day activities
- long-term effect
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.