Case 6008963/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K. Trytko v Norbar Torque Tools Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008963/2024
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K. Trytko
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at Watford by CVP on 7 March 2025 before Employment Judge McNeill KC. The Claimant, Mrs K. Trytko, appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by counsel. The tribunal dealt with her claims against Norbar Torque Tools Limited and recorded that the unfair dismissal claim under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.
The Claimant’s disability discrimination claims were dismissed because the tribunal found that, at the times relevant to the claim, she was not a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. As a result, the substantive disability discrimination complaints did not succeed.
The tribunal also found that the Claimant’s employment terminated on 24 July 2024, that she had been paid the amounts to which she was entitled, and that her claim for sick pay had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination claims were dismissed because the Claimant was not, at the relevant times, a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.