Case 3327781/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Tennant v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 3327781/2017
- Decision date
- 31 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Tennant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary issue was whether, between September 2016 and September 2017, the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of depression. The tribunal considered the claimant's evidence, GP records, occupational health material, and submissions about the timing and extent of her symptoms.
The tribunal found that the claimant had shown a mental impairment from at least September 2016. It rejected the contention that there was evidence of a mental impairment before September 2016, but inferred from the later diagnosis of depression and the September 2016 records of low mood and related symptoms that the same condition was present then.
The tribunal accepted that the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on the claimant's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, while recognising that the effects waxed and waned. It found that by the relevant time the effect of the impairment had lasted at least 12 months, including on 11 September 2017, and therefore held that the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment decided only the preliminary issue whether the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time; it did not determine the substantive discrimination allegations or remedy. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- substantial adverse effect
- long-term adverse effect
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.