Case 3204910/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Miss C Partner v Heheals Pharmaceutical Services Limited t/a Christchurch Care — 2022

Case reference: 3204910/2021
Decision date: 29 March 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Moor Members
Panel members: Ms A Berry, Mr P Quinn

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss C Partner

Respondent

Heheals Pharmaceutical Services Limited t/a Christchurch Care

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The judgment records a unanimous finding that Miss C Partner was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 for the whole period of her employment with Heheals Pharmaceutical Services Limited t/a Christchurch Care. The decision was given by Employment Judge Moor sitting with lay members Ms A Berry and Mr P Quinn at East London Hearing Centre on 25 March 2022, and was dated 29 March 2022.

The extracted text does not record any substantive determination of liability or remedy on the underlying employment claims. It therefore supports only the disability-status finding, not the final outcome of any disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, breach of contract, or whistleblowing claim.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The extracted judgment text records only a preliminary finding that the Claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 for the whole period of her employment. It does not state the substantive outcome of any disability discrimination claim.	Other	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.