Case 3309010/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Ms Natalie Choi v LHR Airports Limited — 2023

Case reference: 3309010/2022
Decision date: 2 October 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Dick Representation
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms Natalie Choi

Respondent

LHR Airports Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Dick heard the matter at Watford on 18 and 23 August 2023. The tribunal found that Ms Natalie Choi was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at any time between November 2020 and 18 February 2022. On that basis, all remaining Equality Act 2010 claims were dismissed.

The tribunal also dealt with limitation for the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims. It held that it was not reasonably practicable for those claims to be presented within the required time period, and that they were submitted within such period as the tribunal considered reasonable. The supplied extract records that time-limit finding, but it does not record a final merits decision on either dismissal claim.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The tribunal found that the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at any time between November 2020 and 18 February 2022, and all remaining Equality Act 2010 claims were dismissed.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal claim to be presented within the required time period and that it was submitted within such reasonable period as the tribunal considered reasonable. The extract does not record a final merits decision on the claim.	Other	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for the wrongful dismissal claim to be presented within the required time period and that it was submitted within such reasonable period as the tribunal considered reasonable. The extract does not record a final merits decision on the claim.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.