Case 2407132/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Lawson v Medimmune UK Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407132/2023
- Decision date
- 27 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Appearances
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Lawson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing heard by CVP in Liverpool on 27 August 2024, Employment Judge Ainscough determined that Miss S Lawson was not a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination claims. The written record states that a separate judgment would be sent out in due course.
The tribunal also recorded that it was not necessary to determine the claimant’s application to amend her disability discrimination claims because those claims had already been dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded in this decision.
The record states that the remaining claim was unfair dismissal, with the issues for that claim to proceed as set out in the earlier preliminary hearing record. The order then gives case-management directions for the final hearing listed for 13 and 14 January 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | At the preliminary hearing on 27 August 2024, the tribunal determined that the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The disability discrimination claims were therefore dismissed. The tribunal said the separate amendment application did not need to be determined because those claims had been dismissed. | Dismissed | 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.