Case 2601267/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Prince-Ward v Boots Management Services Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2601267/2019
- Decision date
- 2 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Prince-Ward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned a preliminary issue: whether Mrs Prince-Ward was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The Respondent accepted that she had mental and physical impairments, but did not accept that the impairments had a long-term substantial effect on her normal day-to-day activities.
The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant and considered her disability impact statement, GP records, and occupational health reports. It found that she suffered from benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, vestibular migraine and migraine with aura; atypical facial pain and optical occipital neuralgia; reversal cervical lordosis, sternomastoid syndrome and cervicogenic headache; and anxiety.
The Tribunal was satisfied that each of those impairments had a long-term substantial adverse effect on her ability to undertake normal day-to-day activities. It concluded that the Claimant did suffer from a disability at the relevant time within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary Hearing determined only whether the Claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. The merits of any disability discrimination complaint were not adjudicated in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability 2011
- substantial adverse effect
- long term effects
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.