Case 2416883/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr C Vervon v CEG Packaging Limited — 2019

Case reference: 2416883/2018
Decision date: 6 September 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ainscough

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr C Vervon

Respondent

CEG Packaging Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The case was heard at Liverpool on 21 August 2019 before Employment Judge Ainscough sitting alone. The written record states that the claimant, Mr C Vervon, was represented by Mr M Broomhead and the respondent, CEG Packaging Limited, was represented by Mr G Isherwood.

The judgment records a single substantive finding: the claimant is a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 as a result of his obsessive compulsive disorder. The extracted text does not set out any further liability findings on a discrimination complaint, nor does it record any monetary award.

The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The written record was sent to the parties on 6 September 2019.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The written judgment records a finding that the claimant is a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 because of obsessive compulsive disorder. No separate substantive claim outcome is set out in the extracted text.	Upheld	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.