Case 2600993/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Skilton v The Partners trading as the Market Harborough and Bosworth Partnership and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600993/2022
- Decision date
- 6 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Welch
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss H Skilton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge K Welch sitting alone. The respondents were given leave to amend their response. The tribunal confirmed that the relevant period for the claimant's disability discrimination claims was March 2020 to May 2022.
The respondents conceded that the claimant was a disabled person by reason of depression during the relevant period. The tribunal also held that, during the relevant period, the claimant was a disabled person by reason of her asthma and/or arthritis for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. It further found that she was not a disabled person by reason of migraines for the purposes of section 6.
The written record is limited to those preliminary disability-status findings. It does not record any substantive liability determination on the underlying claims or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Open preliminary hearing only. The tribunal confirmed the relevant period for the claimant's disability discrimination claims as March 2020 to May 2022, accepted that the claimant was a disabled person by reason of depression during that period, and also found that she was a disabled person by reason of asthma and/or arthritis. It found that she was not a disabled person by reason of migraines. | 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.