Case 3313777/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Winstone, counsel For the v Ms H Barney - Counsel — 2023
- Case reference
- 3313777/2022
- Decision date
- 10 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Winstone, counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing on whether the claimant satisfied the definition of disability under s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times. The claimant, a Consultant Radiologist, relied on two conditions: migraines and what he described as exhaustion and debility. He said these arose from a heavy workload, long commute, and caring responsibilities. The respondent denied that he was disabled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing on disability only. The tribunal held that the claimant did not have a disability within s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times; this judgment did not determine the underlying merits of the pleaded disability discrimination complaints. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.212(1) Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1, paragraph 2 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- Cruickshank v Vaw Motorcast Ltd
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council
- Igweike v TSB Bank plc
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle
- Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd
- Morgan Stanley International v Posavec
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.