Case 3311921/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Barnes v Coca-Cola Europacific Partners — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311921/2023
- Decision date
- 15 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Barnes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment on a preliminary issue only. The tribunal had to decide whether Ms J Barnes was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period, which it identified as 29 November 2022 to 16 July 2023. The end date was taken beyond 7 June 2023 because the claimant’s pleaded case about the appeal was treated as an omission issue under section 123 Equality Act 2010.
On ADHD, the tribunal accepted the diagnosis made by Dr Halari in July 2023 and found that the claimant had had the impairment for many years. It relied on evidence of longstanding difficulties with attention, memory, information retention, time management and processing speed, including difficulties at school, in work and in domestic life. The tribunal found that these effects were more than minor or trivial, that coping strategies and support from colleagues did not reduce them to an insubstantial level, and that the effects had lasted for more than 12 months by the start of the relevant period.
On depression, the tribunal accepted that the claimant’s mood was low by August 2022 and that by 29 November 2022 she was experiencing effects including stress at work, anxiety, interrupted sleep, forgetfulness, low mood, social withdrawal and loss of confidence. It attached weight to the GP records, fit notes, sertraline prescription and later medical material, and found that the substantial adverse effects were long-term because they had already lasted more than 12 months by 29 November 2022 or, alternatively, were likely to last for at least 12 months when assessed at 16 July 2023. The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was disabled by reason of both ADHD and depression during the relevant period. No liability findings or remedy were decided in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary disability-status judgment only. The tribunal held that the claimant was disabled by reason of ADHD throughout the relevant period and by reason of depression from 29 November 2022 to 16 July 2023. The substantive disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay complaints were not determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.212 Equality Act 2010
- 2011 Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability
- Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] IRLR 4
- Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth [2000] IRLR 699
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railways Ltd UKEAT/0316/12
- Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle [2009] IRLR 746
- All Answers Ltd v Mr W [2021] IRLR 612
- Paterson v Commissioner of Police and the Metropolis [2007] ICR 1522
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.