Case 6019433/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mx T Dimitrova v Fora Space Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019433/2024
- Decision date
- 2 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mx T Dimitrova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the tribunal decided that at the relevant times the claimant was a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of ADHD, depression and anxiety.
On that basis, the judgment recorded that the claimant's current complaints of direct disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments can proceed. The judgment did not determine the merits of those complaints or make any award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing judgment found the claimant was disabled under section 6 Equality Act 2010; the direct disability discrimination complaint can proceed. The substantive complaint was not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing judgment found the claimant was disabled under section 6 Equality Act 2010; the reasonable adjustments complaint can proceed. The substantive complaint was not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.