Case 3300068/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Kiera Hill v The Beehive Wokingham Limited OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 3300068/2020
- Decision date
- 18 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Chudleigh
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Kiera Hill
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 18 January 2021, at a preliminary hearing in Reading before Employment Judge Chudleigh sitting alone, the tribunal held that Miss Kiera Hill was a disabled person within the meaning of s 6 Equality Act 2010 at all material times between 4 September 2019 and 7 November 2019. The disability was found to arise from ADHD and ASD.
The respondent, The Beehive Wokingham Limited, applied to strike out the claimant's reasonable adjustment claim and the claims of direct and indirect age discrimination, and also sought deposit orders in respect of those claims. The tribunal dismissed that application. This judgment did not determine the substantive merits of the underlying claims and recorded no financial remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | At this preliminary hearing, the tribunal found that Miss Kiera Hill was a disabled person within the meaning of s 6 Equality Act 2010 at all material times between 4 September 2019 and 7 November 2019 by reason of ADHD and ASD. The respondent's application to strike out the reasonable adjustment claim and to obtain a deposit order in respect of it was dismissed. | Other | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | The respondent's application to strike out the direct age discrimination claim and to obtain a deposit order in respect of it was dismissed. No merits determination was made in this judgment. | Other | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | The respondent's application to strike out the indirect age discrimination claim and to obtain a deposit order in respect of it was dismissed. No merits determination was made in this judgment. | Other | Age | — |
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.