Case 2402712/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Wockenforth v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402712/2022
- Decision date
- 5 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Wockenforth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined a preliminary issue concerning disability status. It found that the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 during the period July-November 2021 by reason of a mental health impairment described as anxiety and depression.
The claimant had also relied on an impairment of multiple stress disorders, but the tribunal made no separate finding on that. The judgment records that the anxiety and depression impairment included the diagnoses of mixed anxiety and depressive disorder and anxiety with depression appearing in the claimant's medical records.
The judgment did not decide the substantive unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, or disability discrimination complaints, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Judgment determined only the preliminary issue that the claimant was a disabled person within s.6 Equality Act 2010 during July-November 2021 by reason of anxiety and depression. It did not determine liability for the discrimination claim or the other listed claims. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.6 Equality Act 2010
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.