Case 3309430/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Jade W-Reid v Anzuk Education Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3309430/2023
- Decision date
- 25 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Jade W-Reid
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the public preliminary hearing on 9 May 2025, Employment Judge Alliott determined that Ms Jade W-Reid was at all material times disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of dyslexia. The respondents accepted that she had dyslexia and that it was a long-term, lifelong impairment; the issue for the tribunal was whether it had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.
The tribunal considered a 2010 assessment by a Chartered Psychologist and a 25 February 2025 report from a Professor Registered Educational & Occupational Psychologist. The judgment records that the claimant’s reading speed, writing speed, comprehension, working memory and spelling were affected, but the judge also found that some aspects of her evidence were exaggerated. Minor matters such as shopping with a list, misplacing clothes, needing a timer when cooking, and taking a minute or two longer to change classrooms were found to be no more than minor or trivial effects.
The tribunal nevertheless accepted that the claimant’s reading, writing and preparation of documents were substantially adversely affected because they took her longer to do. It also found that her memory and comprehension were substantially adversely affected, including because she relied on notes more than would otherwise be expected and took longer to comprehend text. The judge held that reading, writing, comprehension and short-term memory are ordinary day-to-day activities and that these were substantially adversely affected at all material times.
The judgment also records that the second respondent should remain a party. A separate case management order was made. No substantive liability decision or monetary remedy was determined in this preliminary judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This was a public preliminary hearing on disability status and party status only. The judgment did not determine a substantive claim outcome. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 212 Equality Act 2010
- EHRC Guidance B2
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.