Case 3300871/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss V Pakalnyte v Do & Co Event & Airline Catering Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300871/2021
- Decision date
- 3 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss V Pakalnyte
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal decided a preliminary issue about whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material time, 6 December 2020. It found that she was disabled by reason of anxiety and depression.
The tribunal also considered the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's complaints of direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability, or alternatively to make a deposit order. It refused the application, finding that the complaints could not be said to have no or little reasonable prospect of success at this stage, because disputed issues including the date and reason for dismissal required evidence at a full hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary judgment only. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled at the material time and refused the respondent's strike-out/deposit application; liability for disability discrimination was left to proceed to a main hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Ahir v British Airways plc
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.