Case 3300094/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Currell v Hertfordshire County Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300094/2022
- Decision date
- 4 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Currell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place before Employment Judge Quill sitting alone at Watford on 8 February 2023. The written record states that Ms C Currell is a disabled person within section 6(2) of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that left knee osteoarthritis, asthma and thyrotoxicosis each satisfied the definition of disability in section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010. It made no decision on other alleged impairments said to amount to disabilities, either alone or in combination.
The record also states that no decision was made on the respondent's knowledge of any impairment or its effects on the claimant. It further records that none of the complaints were struck out, and it contains no merits finding or monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 and that left knee osteoarthritis, asthma and thyrotoxicosis each satisfied the statutory definition. No decision was made on other alleged impairments or on the respondent's knowledge, and there was no merits determination. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6(1) Equality Act 2010
- section 6(2) 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.