Case 4106871/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Miss H Mitchell v Idverde Limited — 2021

Case reference: 4106871/2020
Decision date: 1 November 2021
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge R Sorrell

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss H Mitchell

Respondent

Idverde Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing in Miss H Mitchell's claims for constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination under sections 15, 19 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010. The issue for determination was disability status. The respondent accepted that sarcoidosis and anxiety were impairments, but disputed that either met the statutory definition of disability at the relevant time.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Preliminary issue only. The tribunal held that the claimant's sarcoidosis was a past disability within s.6(4) Equality Act 2010, so the disability discrimination claim could proceed on that basis.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Preliminary issue only. The tribunal accepted that anxiety was an impairment, but held that its effect was not long term, so it did not meet the s.6 Equality Act 2010 definition of disability.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

9 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.