Case 2408728/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sebina Malik v Department for Work and Pensions RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408728/2022
- Decision date
- 22 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sebina Malik
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Manchester on 15 July 2024, Employment Judge Cookson, sitting alone by CVP, determined a disability issue under section 6 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that Ms Sebina Malik was a disabled person at the relevant times because of Reynaud's Syndrome and Lupus.
On that basis, the complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments could proceed. The judgment did not decide the substantive merits of those complaints or record any remedy; it was limited to the preliminary disability finding, with reasons given orally 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 found the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of Reynaud's Syndrome and Lupus, and held that the complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments could proceed. No final merits determination was made. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.
- 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 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.