Case 6017475/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017475/2024
- Decision date
- 2 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Smail found that the claimant was disabled at all material times. The disabilities identified were attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, severe anxiety and chronic migraines, the latter being otherwise substantially controlled by amitriptyline. The claimant withdrew the contention that type 2 diabetes was relevant to the claim.
The respondent continued to dispute knowledge of autism spectrum disorder and severe anxiety, both at all and in relation to any substantial disadvantage arising from them. The judgment therefore resolved the disability-status issue, but did not decide final liability on the substantive discrimination claim.
The tribunal also directed that, because the claimant had found new employment, a revised schedule of loss was to be served on the respondent and the tribunal by 4 pm on 1 September 2025. The respondent was invited to apply for a judicial assessment of the reality of the schedule of loss by 4 pm on 19 September 2025, subject to liability.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only: the tribunal found the claimant was disabled at all material times by reason of ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, severe anxiety and chronic migraines. The respondent put in issue knowledge of autism spectrum disorder and severe anxiety. The judgment did not determine final liability on the substantive discrimination claim. | Other | Disability | — |
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.