Case 2406541/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. D. Wilkinson v Liverpool University NHS Foundation Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 2406541/2019
- Decision date
- 6 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. D. Wilkinson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Liverpool on 9 December 2019 before Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan. The tribunal determined a preliminary issue only: whether Mr D. Wilkinson was a disabled person for the purposes of his Equality Act 2010 claims against Liverpool University NHS Foundation Trust.
The tribunal’s judgment was that, at the material time, the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning relevant to those claims. No substantive liability issues were decided in the written record provided.
The record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days. No such request was made at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal decided that, at the material time, the claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of his Equality Act 2010 claims. | 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
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the .
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.