Case 2415980/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Antieul v Surefil Beauty Products Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415980/2020
- Decision date
- 6 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Antieul
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the matter remotely by CVP in Manchester on 15 April 2021 before Employment Judge Dunlop. The judgment addressed the issue of disability status for the purposes of the claim and did not record any monetary award.
The tribunal held that the claimant's irritable bowel syndrome amounted to a disability within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 at all material times, including specifically the period from the start of the covid-19 pandemic in March 2020 through to termination of employment. The judgment also recorded that the respondent had already conceded that the claimant was disabled in the relevant period because of a historical cancer diagnosis, so the claim proceeded on the basis that the claimant was disabled by reference to both conditions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment determined that the claimant's irritable bowel syndrome amounted to a disability within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 at all material times, including from the start of the covid-19 pandemic in March 2020 through to termination of employment. The respondent had already conceded disability within the relevant period by reference to a historical cancer diagnosis. | 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.
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.