Case 2500270/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Wood v JD Wetherspoon — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500270/2022
- Decision date
- 24 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Wood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined whether the Claimant was a disabled person during the material period of his employment with the Respondent. It found that he was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 in respect of Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
The tribunal also found that the Claimant had not established that he was disabled at the material time in respect of the other impairments identified in the agreed list of issues for the preliminary hearing. The judgment does not determine the substantive discrimination, dismissal, or breach of contract claims and makes no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment determined a preliminary issue of disability status only. It found the Claimant was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 in respect of Irritable Bowel Syndrome, but had not established disability in respect of other impairments identified in the agreed list of issues. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.