Case 3314304/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3314304/2023
- Decision date
- 3 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the preliminary issue of whether Mr Harrison met the definition of a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010 for the relevant period from 1 January 2019 to 7 December 2023. The impairment relied on was dyslexia, described in the judgment as a neurodiverse condition or learning disability while applying the statutory terminology of mental impairment.
The tribunal accepted Mr Harrison's evidence, supported by an expert report, about the effects on reading, writing, social activities, communication, driving, navigation, memory, organisation, concentration, multi-tasking and processing oral instructions. It rejected the respondent's challenge based on LinkedIn material, accepting the claimant's explanation that others helped him provide services advertised there.
The tribunal found that the effects on normal day-to-day activities were more than minor or trivial and long term, noting that the condition was lifelong and had been present since childhood. It concluded that Mr Harrison was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 during the material period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Open preliminary hearing determined only whether the claimant was a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010 for the relevant period; it did not determine liability on the substantive discrimination claim. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.212 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- Leonard v Southern Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce
- Ahmed v Metroline Travel Ltd
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.