Case 3303844/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Temme, Legal Executive For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3303844/2019
- Decision date
- 22 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr G Temme, Legal Executive For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on 1 November 2019 before Employment Judge Bedeau at Watford. The respondent parties applied to strike out, and/or for a deposit order, in relation to the claimant's discrimination arising in consequence of disability complaint.
The tribunal refused that application. It held that there were issues to be tried, with particular focus on whether the claimant's absence from work for work-related stress was a symptom of anxiety and depression. The judgment records no final merits determination of the discrimination claim at this stage.
No remedy was awarded because the judgment dealt only with the preliminary application. The parties named in the judgment were the claimant, Ms Hayley Twyman, and the respondents Ryefield Court Care Limited, Ms Sarah Fuller, Berkeley Care Group Limited, Ms Jenny Fuller and Ms Nicola Ireland.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The respondents' application to strike out and/or for a deposit order in respect of the claimant's discrimination arising in consequence of disability claim was refused. The tribunal said there were issues to be tried, particularly whether the claimant's absence from work for work-related stress was a symptom of anxiety and depression. | Other | Disability | — |
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.