Case 3201302/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Lakhvinder Kaur v Tunmarsh School and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3201302/2022
- Decision date
- 4 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrowclough Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Lakhvinder Kaur
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing to decide whether the Claimant was disabled within s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of anxiety and depression at the material time, and whether disability discrimination allegations were out of time. The Tribunal declined to postpone those issues, finding that the Claimant had been on notice to provide relevant medical evidence and had had sufficient time to prepare despite the late service points raised on her behalf.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant had the mental impairment of anxiety and depression from late 2019 until her resignation in late 2021. It relied in particular on GP records, a note referring to significant mixed anxiety and depressive disorder, and prescriptions including Sertraline. However, it found there was insufficient evidence that the impairment had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
Because the statutory definition of disability was not met, the Tribunal dismissed the disability-related complaints: harassment related to disability, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and victimisation insofar as it related to disability. The Tribunal stated in the alternative that, if the Claimant had been disabled, it would have struck out the Schedule A disability discrimination incidents as out of time, but would not have struck out the Schedule B allegations.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to disability was dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not a disabled person within s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaint was dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not disabled within the statutory definition at the material time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability was dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not disabled within the statutory definition at the material time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint was dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not disabled within the statutory definition at the material time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaint was dismissed only so far as it related to disability, because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not disabled within the statutory definition at the material time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(3) Equality Act 2010
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
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.