Case 3302607/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Miss Robinson (C) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302607/2023
- Decision date
- 22 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Talbot-Ponsonby Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Talbot-Ponsonby at Reading on 17 April 2024. The claimant, Mr Derek Pike, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Miss Robinson. The only issue determined in the written judgment was whether the claimant’s tinnitus amounted to a disability for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that tinnitus did not amount to a disability within the meaning of section 6. On that basis, the claim was struck out under rule 37 of the Tribunal Rules because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
No monetary award was made and no separate remedy figures were recorded. The written decision was sent to the parties on 22 May 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant relied on tinnitus as the disability. The tribunal held that tinnitus does not amount to a disability within section 6 Equality Act 2010 and struck out the claim under rule 37 as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- rule 37 of the Tribunal Rules
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.