Case 2420362/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Wilson v Prahi Hotel Collection Ltd t/a Shrigley Hall Hotel and Spa — 2021
- Case reference
- 2420362/2020
- Decision date
- 12 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Wilson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing on 8 November 2021, Employment Judge Robinson sitting alone determined a preliminary issue in Mrs M Wilson's case against Prahi Hotel Collection Ltd t/a Shrigley Hall Hotel and Spa. The tribunal found that the claimant's daughter, Ciara Mills, was disabled by way of mental impairment within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010.
As a result, the claimant was allowed to proceed with her claims relating to disability by association. The decision did not determine the substantive merits of those claims, and no remedy was assessed at this stage.
The tribunal also recorded that the final hearing had already been listed for 11 to 13 April 2023 at Manchester Employment Tribunal, and that no further order or directions were needed because the necessary case-management orders had already been made by Employment Judge Benson on 22 July 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found that the claimant's daughter, Ciara Mills, was disabled by way of mental impairment within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010, so the claimant could proceed with disability-by-association claims. | Upheld | 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.