Case 3301385/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Iwona Maria Wawer-La Verde v Heathermount School Limited PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301385/2024
- Decision date
- 1 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Iwona Maria Wawer-La Verde
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing heard by video in Reading on 1 November 2024 before Employment Judge C H O’Rourke. The claimant was represented by Mr Ghulam, legal consultant, and the respondent by Mr Walker, litigation consultant.
The tribunal held that Ms Iwona Maria Wawer-La Verde was not, within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, disabled at the relevant time. On that basis, the tribunal struck out her claims of discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment related to disability for want of jurisdiction.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time by a party. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the claimant was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, so the claim was struck out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Other | Failure to make reasonable adjustments is not a distinct enum category in the output schema; the tribunal struck this claim out for want of jurisdiction after finding the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The harassment related to disability claim was struck out for want of jurisdiction because the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.6 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.