Case 3304920/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K B Jeyapackiam v Cambridge & Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 3304920/2023
- Decision date
- 20 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K B Jeyapackiam
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Bury St Edmunds via CVP on 19 February 2024, before Employment Judge Laidler sitting alone, the tribunal recorded a single finding on disability status. It found that Mr K B Jeyapackiam was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the material period 17 February 2022 to 30 March 2023, by reason of musculoskeletal lower back pain/sciatica.
The written judgment does not record a separate liability decision on the underlying discrimination, race, or wages claims, and it does not record any monetary award or other remedy. On the material provided, the decision is limited to the disability-status finding.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found, as recorded in the judgment, that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time, 17 February 2022 to 30 March 2023, by virtue of musculoskeletal lower back pain/sciatica. The written record does not record any further liability determination or financial award. | Other | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.