Case 3302429/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Krystyna Gorecka v Busy Bees Nurseries Limited Heard: Watford Hearing Centre — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302429/2022
- Decision date
- 19 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Krystyna Gorecka
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 11 January 2023, Employment Judge G Tobin heard evidence from the claimant and submissions from both parties. The tribunal determined that Mrs Krystyna Gorecka was a disabled person under section 6 and Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010 in respect of her left wrist ganglion for the period 10 June 2019 to 3 December 2021.
The tribunal also determined that, for the period January 2020 to 3 December 2021, the claimant was not disabled with depression and/or anxiety. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue: the tribunal found the claimant was a disabled person under section 6 and Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010 in respect of her left wrist ganglion between 10 June 2019 and 3 December 2021. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue: the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled with depression and/or anxiety during January 2020 to 3 December 2021. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 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.