Case 3303991/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. P. Hale (consultant) For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3303991/2022
- Decision date
- 26 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr.
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr. P. Hale (consultant) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge A Spencer, heard the case remotely on 24 May 2023 and issued a written record sent to the parties on 26 June 2023. The judgment records a single finding: the claimant, Helen Philips, was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the period from late April 2019 to early June 2019.
The tribunal found that the relevant impairments were migraines and depression. It expressly recorded that anxiety disorder was not part of the disability finding for that period. The decision is framed as a disability-status determination rather than a substantive liability or remedy judgment, and no monetary award is recorded.
The record also states that the reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time. No further findings, legal analysis, or remedy calculations are included in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records a preliminary finding that the claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of migraines and depression, and not anxiety disorder, in the period from late April 2019 to early June 2019. It does not record any substantive liability decision or remedy. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.