Case 3314533/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Heard (Counsel). For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3314533/2020
- Decision date
- 15 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr J Heard (Counsel). For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing at Bury St Edmunds by CVP on 15 September 2021 before Employment Judge Laidler. The claimant was represented by Mr J Heard and the respondent by Mr S Proffitt. The tribunal recorded that the hearing was to determine a disability issue rather than the full merits of the case.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not satisfy the definition of disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material time, said to arise by virtue of stress and anxiety. On that basis, the claimant's claims of disability discrimination were dismissed.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note appended to the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that the claimant did not satisfy the definition of disabled within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time by virtue of stress and anxiety. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.