Case 3310178/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Anderson v Iceland Foods Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310178/2022
- Decision date
- 27 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Anderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 14 June 2023 before Employment Judge R Lewis, the tribunal dealt with preliminary issues only. It held that Ms Anderson was a disabled person at the relevant time by reason of anxiety, so claims based on that disability could proceed. It also held that she was not a disabled person at the relevant time by reason of osteoarthritis, and claims based on osteoarthritis were therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary ruling: the claimant was held to be a disabled person at the relevant time by reason of anxiety, and the tribunal said it could hear claims based on that disability; no substantive merits finding was made. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant time by reason of osteoarthritis, so claims based on osteoarthritis were struck out. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The respondent's application for a deposit order in respect of the sex discrimination claims was refused; the tribunal considered the claim weak but did not make a merits determination. | Other | Sex | — |
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.