Case 3305167/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305167/2023
- Decision date
- 4 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing determined whether the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the material period from 20 May 2022 to 18 February 2023. The impairments relied on were ADHD, autism, and anxiety and depression.
The tribunal found no medical evidence that the claimant had ADHD or autism during the material period. For anxiety and depression, the tribunal found the medical evidence was limited and did not show that the claimant had a qualifying mental impairment during the material period, or that any such impairment had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not a disabled person within the statutory definition during the relevant period. The disability discrimination claim was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period and that the disability discrimination claim was struck out. The reasons section also says the claim was dismissed. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 212(1) Equality Act 2010
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.