Case 3309119/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Zhaveri v Spreetail UK Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 3309119/2022
- Decision date
- 7 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Zhaveri
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public at Cambridge before Employment Judge Tynan sitting alone. The claimant, Ms B Zhaveri, appeared in person and the respondent, Spreetail UK Ltd, was represented by counsel. The issue decided was whether the claimant was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period, 19 April to 14 June 2022, by reason of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, panic attacks, suicidal thoughts and/or self-harming.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 for that period. On that basis, the claimant's various complaints of disability discrimination were dismissed because they had no reasonable prospect of success.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no further written reasons would be provided unless requested in time. No remedy was awarded or addressed in the written record.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found that, in the period 19 April to 14 June 2022, the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, panic attacks, suicidal thoughts and/or self-harming. | Dismissed | 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.