Case 3302664/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. S Stickel v ISIS Chiropractic LLP — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302664/2023
- Decision date
- 18 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heathcote
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. S Stickel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Heathcote sitting alone at Watford via CVP on 13 September 2023. The tribunal recorded that Ms S Stickel was represented by herself and ISIS Chiropractic LLP was represented by counsel, Mr J Ratledge.
The only substantive finding recorded was that the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 for the period from February 2019 to date. On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant's complaints of disability discrimination falling within that period may proceed.
The judgment is a short preliminary decision and does not record any merits findings, liability findings on the underlying discrimination complaints, or any remedy award. It also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's note.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 for the period from February 2019 to the date of the decision, so the disability discrimination complaints within that period could proceed. | Upheld | 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.