Case 6009505/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Wolanska v DHL Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009505/2024
- Decision date
- 12 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Wolanska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that from 1 January 2023 the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of anxiety, even though the condition may not have been diagnosed as anxiety until a later date.
On that basis, disability discrimination complaints relating to the period from 1 January 2023 can proceed. Disability discrimination complaints relating to the period before 1 January 2023 cannot proceed and were dismissed. The judgment does not determine any unfair dismissal, breach of contract, flexible working, or remedy issues.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis 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 | The tribunal decided that disability discrimination complaints relating to the period from 1 January 2023 can proceed; this was not a final determination of liability. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Disability discrimination complaints relating to the period before 1 January 2023 were dismissed because the claimant was found to be disabled from 1 January 2023. | 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.