Case 3301900/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Robert Watson v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2022

Case reference: 3301900/2020
Decision date: 18 September 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Postle
Venue: Norwich

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Robert Watson

Respondent

Tesco Stores Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At an open preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered whether the claimant was a disabled person by reason of stress, anxiety and depression during the material period from 17 March 2019 to 7 October 2019. Employment Judge Postle, sitting alone, determined that the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.

Following that determination, the tribunal recorded that the only outstanding claims were ordinary unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and claims for unpaid wages and notice pay. Those outstanding claims were not determined in this judgment; directions were given for the respondent to provide dates to avoid for a full merits hearing.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The judgment determined as a preliminary issue that the claimant was not a disabled person by reason of stress, anxiety and depression at the material times within Section 6 Equality Act 2010. The extracted text does not set out the underlying discrimination allegations, but the disability issue was decided against the claimant.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.