Case 6011941/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Respondent v Heard at — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011941/2024
- Decision date
- 17 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Respondent
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered at a public preliminary hearing whether the claimant was a disabled person at the material times by reason of Irritable Bowel Syndrome under s.6 of the Equality Act 2010. The respondent accepted that the claimant had IBS and that it was a long-term impairment, but disputed whether it had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not a credible witness on the severity and effect of his symptoms. It relied on the GP notes, the pre-employment medical questionnaire, and inconsistencies in the claimant's explanations, and found that the evidence did not show substantial adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not disabled at the material time by reason of IBS. The judgment did not determine remedy or make any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing judgment determined that the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time under s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of IBS. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on Matters to be Taken into Account in Determining Questions Relating to Disability (2011)
- s.212(1) Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302
- Igweike v TSB Bank plc [2019] UKEAT/0119/19/B1
- Klonek v University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust [2024] Case Number 2301520/2023
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.