Case 6021984/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs F White v Trees Park (East Ham) Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021984/2024
- Decision date
- 25 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McAvoy Newns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs F White
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing considered whether the claimant was disabled at the material time by reason of Type 2 Diabetes and, if not, whether the victimisation claim should be struck out. The respondent accepted that the claimant had Type 2 Diabetes, but the tribunal found that the evidence did not show, on the balance of probabilities, that without insulin the condition had a long-term and substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities during the relevant period.
The tribunal therefore dismissed the disability discrimination claims. It also struck out the victimisation claim, assuming for the decision that such a claim was within scope, because there were no reasonable prospects of finding a protected act and the alleged detriments appeared to pre-date the alleged protected acts.
The claimant withdrew constructive unfair dismissal after the tribunal explained the qualifying-service issue for ordinary unfair dismissal, and withdrew constructive wrongful dismissal after it was acknowledged that she had received and been paid for her full notice entitlement.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that, at the material time between 6 March 2023 and 16 June 2024, the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reference to Type 2 Diabetes, and dismissed her disability discrimination claims. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal assumed for the purposes of the decision that a victimisation claim was within scope, but found no reasonable prospects of establishing a protected act or detriments occurring after any alleged protected act. | Struck out | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The constructive wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant after it was acknowledged that she had received and been paid for her full notice entitlement. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- 2011 Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability
- balance of probabilities
- Taylor v Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Ltd
- Beneviste
- Kokomane v Boots Management Services Ltd
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.