Case 2409021/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Catherine Wilde v Flair Flooring Supplies Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409021/2023
- Decision date
- 2 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ficklin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Catherine Wilde
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing heard in public by CVP on 26 April 2024 before Employment Judge Ficklin sitting alone. The respondent was Flair Flooring Supplies Limited. No objection was taken to the remote format of the hearing.
The tribunal determined a preliminary issue on disability status. It found that Ms Catherine Wilde was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of autism, which the tribunal recorded as a permanent condition. The relevant period identified in the judgment was 17 October 2022 to 5 June 2023.
The judgment did not determine the merits of any substantive discrimination complaint or any remedy. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment records only the preliminary disability finding.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal decided that the claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of autism for the relevant period of her employment, 17 October 2022 to 5 June 2023. | 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.