Case 2500577/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Howard v Smith and Graham Solicitors — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500577/2023
- Decision date
- 16 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Howard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Miss K Howard was disabled at the relevant times within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. It found that her lower back pain was caused by disc bulges at T6 to T9 and T9 to T10, with small posterior protrusions.
On that basis, the tribunal recorded that the complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments and unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability could proceed. The extracted judgment does not contain a final liability determination or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary finding only. The tribunal held that the claimant was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of lower back pain caused by disc bulges at T6 to T9 and T9 to T10 with small posterior protrusions, and that the reasonable-adjustments complaint could proceed. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary finding only. The tribunal held that the claimant was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of lower back pain caused by disc bulges at T6 to T9 and T9 to T10 with small posterior protrusions, and that the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability could proceed. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.