Case 2602457/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Carey v 1) Wiccaweys Rescued Border Collies and Working Sheepdogs CIC and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602457/2021
- Decision date
- 11 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Broughton
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms S Carey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination arising from the termination of her employment on 4 June 2021. At this preliminary hearing, the tribunal was concerned only with whether she was disabled at the relevant time for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that the claimant had depression and anxiety, with a history of recurring symptoms and medical intervention. It accepted evidence of substantial adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities, including fatigue, low mood, thoughts of self-harm, intrusive thoughts, loss of appetite, and periods where she could only sit and stare or rock.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was disabled from 14 July 2010 and remained disabled up to the termination of her employment on 4 June 2021. No decision was made in this judgment on liability for unfair dismissal or disability discrimination, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | This judgment decided only the preliminary issue of whether the claimant was disabled under section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. The substantive direct disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims were not adjudicated in this judgment. | Upheld | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.