Case 3311826/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Stewart v Rudolph and Hellman Automotive Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311826/2024
- Decision date
- 17 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Milner-Moore
- Venue
- Reading via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Stewart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 16 June 2025, Employment Judge Milner-Moore recorded that Mr Stewart was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of the impairments of double hernia and hydrocele. The tribunal found that as at 28 November 2022 the impairments were likely to last at least 12 months, and that as at 1 May 2023 they had lasted for at least 12 months.
The written judgment does not set out any further substantive findings on liability, does not record a final disposal of the underlying claim, and does not state any monetary award. It also notes that the reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written record only states that the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of double hernia and hydrocele. It does not record a substantive liability decision or remedy for the discrimination claim. | Other | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.