Case 3308740/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Hellen Adetula v Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited and Thames Valley Housing Association Limited RECORD OF A PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2026
- Case reference
- 3308740/2024
- Decision date
- 27 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Hellen Adetula
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined at a public preliminary hearing whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. It found that the claimant had physical and mental impairments of PTSD, hypertension, right shoulder injury and migraine following an incident at work on 7 March 2023.
The tribunal found that those impairments had a substantial adverse effect on the claimant's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities as 2023 progressed. It concluded that the claimant was disabled by reason of PTSD, hypertension, right shoulder injury and migraine at all material times after 15 January 2024.
The hearing did not decide liability on the substantive claim or any remedy. A further case management preliminary hearing was ordered for 3 September 2026.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Public preliminary hearing determined only whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the material time. Liability and remedy were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 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.