Case 3304664/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Suzanne Parkus v London Borough of Barnet RECORD OF PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304664/2024
- Decision date
- 15 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Suzanne Parkus
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing in Watford on 11 and 12 February 2025, Employment Judge Alliott determined the preliminary issue of whether Ms Suzanne Parkus was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 between 31 May 2022 and 3 May 2024. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and from Mr Mihalis Koumi, had a 715-page bundle including a disability impact statement and extensive medical records, and applied section 6, Schedule 1 paragraph 2, Schedule 1 paragraph 5, and the EHRC Code of Practice on Employment and related guidance on disability.
The tribunal found that the claimant had the physical impairment of hypermobility with a probable diagnosis of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, intervertebral disc bulge/degenerative spondylitis/back pain, head trauma/neurological overstimulation causing light and noise sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome, and low blood pressure/anaemia. It also found that she had a mental impairment of stress, caused at least in part by the neurological overstimulation, chronic fatigue syndrome, and low blood pressure/anaemia.
On the claimant's evidence, those impairments had significant adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities, including lifting and carrying, sitting and standing for long periods, writing and typing, cooking and preparing food, driving for long periods, sleep, concentration, fatigue, and sensitivity to light and noise, together with dizziness and nausea. The judge took a holistic approach because of overlap between the impairments, found that all of the claimant's disabilities had a significant adverse effect on day-to-day activities, and concluded that she was disabled at all relevant times. The judgment expressly made no findings at this stage about how the limitations were manifested at work or about respondent knowledge, which were left for the final merits hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue of disability status under section 6 Equality Act 2010; the tribunal found the claimant disabled at all relevant times by reason of six impairments, but did not determine substantive liability. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 5 Equality Act 2010
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment (2011)
- EHRC guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability (2011)
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.