Case 2502056/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Sayadsarvari v Cramlington House Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2502056/2023
- Decision date
- 25 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Sayadsarvari
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered whether the claimant had ADHD and whether it amounted to a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period between June and August 2023. The Tribunal made adjustments for the claimant at the hearing and considered her oral evidence, medical records, and reports including those of Dr Lowe and Dr Rao.
The Tribunal found that the claimant did not have a mental impairment caused by ADHD at the material time. It also stated that, even if there had been such an impairment, the evidence was insufficient to show a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out day-to-day activities.
Because the claimant did not meet the statutory definition of disability, and the only claims brought were disability discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010, all claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the only claims brought related to disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and that all claims were dismissed because the claimant was not disabled at the material time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
- balance of probabilities
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.