Case 4102165/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Carole Fortune v Stobo Castle — 2021
- Case reference
- 4102165/2020
- Decision date
- 8 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Neil Buzzard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Carole Fortune
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Carole Fortune brought discrimination claims against Stobo Castle relying on anxiety as her qualifying disability under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal recorded that no other potential disability was relied on.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not presented evidence capable of establishing that her anxiety had, at the time of the alleged discrimination, substantial long-term effects on her ability to carry out day-to-day activities. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that anxiety was not shown to be a disability for Equality Act purposes.
Because all of the claimant's claims depended on anxiety being accepted as a disability, the tribunal held that the claims could not succeed and dismissed them. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant relied on anxiety as the disability for her Equality Act 2010 claims. The tribunal found there was no evidence that, at the time of the alleged discrimination, the anxiety had substantial long-term effects on her ability to carry out day-to-day activities. Because the claims depended on anxiety meeting the definition of disability, all claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Equality Act 2010 disability definition
- substantial long-term effects on day-to-day activities
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.