Case 3301597/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Elliott v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3301597/2023
- Decision date
- 30 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Matthews Representation
- Venue
- Watford - video platform
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Elliott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary issue was whether Mrs Elliott was a disabled person by reason of a left knee injury within the meaning of section 6(2) of the Equality Act 2010 on 27 January 2023. The tribunal considered limited evidence, including Department for Work and Pensions letters, an impact statement, and a later occupational health report only insofar as it recorded matters predating 28 January 2023.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a physical impairment from the knee injury at the relevant time. It found, however, that the evidence about adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities was thin and did not sufficiently establish that any adverse effect was substantial. It also concluded, in the alternative, that the evidence did not show as at 27 January 2023 that any substantial adverse effect was likely to last at least 12 months or for the rest of the claimant's life.
Accordingly, the tribunal held that Mrs Elliott was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 by reference to the effects associated with her left knee injury, and dismissed the disability discrimination claims. The wages claim was mentioned as part of the proceedings but was not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal determined that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of section 6(2) of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. The judgment records that the disability discrimination claims were dismissed on that basis. The wages claim mentioned in the introduction was not adjudicated in this judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 212(1) Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 5 Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability (2011)
- Goodwin v The Patent Office [1999] IRLR 4
- Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd [2002] IRLR 24
- Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark [2003] IRLR 11
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.