Case 3306422/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Ashley, Counsel For the First & Third v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3306422/2020
- Decision date
- 9 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Members
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr N Ashley, Counsel For the First & Third
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in the claims brought by Mr Jonathan Stanley against NHS Norfolk and Waveney Clinical Commissioning Group, Norfolk County Council, and Ms Cath Byford. The hearing was before Employment Judge Postle at Norwich on 9 February 2023.
The only recorded determination in the supplied extract was a disability status finding. The tribunal held that the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of anxiety and depression, with effect from October 2019.
No further liability findings, reasons on other claims, or remedy awards are set out in the provided text, so the extract records only the preliminary disability issue and does not include any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing issue. The tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of anxiety and depression from October 2019. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.