Case 6007494/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Croucher v Herts Urgent Care (HUC) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007494/2025
- Decision date
- 25 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Halliday REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Croucher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in public on 25 November 2025, the tribunal decided whether the claimant was a disabled person at the relevant times, identified as 4 November 2024 to 5 March 2025, because of a tumour of the sinuses. The tribunal found that she was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010.
On that basis, the complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability and/or failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed. The judgment records that the remaining complaints of harassment, victimisation, unlawful deductions and breach of contract will proceed to a final hearing listed for 1 to 5 June 2026.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found at a preliminary hearing that the claimant was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times. The complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability and/or failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed. The judgment states that harassment, victimisation, unlawful deductions and breach of contract complaints will proceed to final hearing, so those complaints were not adjudicated in this judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.