Case 2602840/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Bathia v Avanti Schools Trust Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602840/2022
- Decision date
- 14 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Bathia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Ahmed sitting alone on 6 July 2023. The only decision recorded in the written judgment is that Mr A Bathia was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that the relevant impairment was a mental impairment, namely an anxiety disorder, and that disability status was established from 17 February 2021. No substantive liability findings or remedy awards are recorded in the judgment.
The judgment notes that the decision was given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The written record therefore contains only the disability-status determination and not a fuller explanation of the tribunal's reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal decided that the Claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of a mental impairment, namely an anxiety disorder, from 17 February 2021. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.