Case 6031054/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G Nicholls of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 6031054/2025
- Decision date
- 3 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Miss G Nicholls of Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal determined whether Mrs J Munley was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 between 1 May and 20 May 2025. It found that she was disabled by reason of work-related stress and/or Mixed Anxiety and Depressive Disorder. This judgment did not decide the merits of her pleaded claims of discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination, or failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The tribunal found that a mental impairment separate from, and more serious than, the occasional effects of Mrs Munley’s pre-existing thyroid condition began in August 2024. Work-related stress was diagnosed on 30 August 2024, Mixed Anxiety and Depressive Disorder was diagnosed on 13 January 2025, and she remained absent on certified sick leave throughout the material period.
The impairment affected Mrs Munley’s sleep, causing fatigue and lack of concentration, and affected her normal social interaction. She changed activities and interactions to avoid people connected with her workplace, and on one occasion experienced a panic attack after encountering such a person. The tribunal found that these effects on normal day-to-day activities were more than minor or trivial.
Applying the four questions identified in Goodwin v Patent Office, the tribunal found a mental impairment, an adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, and a substantial effect. Although the impairment had lasted approximately nine months by May 2025, the tribunal found that it was then likely to continue for a further two to three months and was therefore likely to last at least 12 months.
No compensation or other monetary remedy was determined in this preliminary judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary judgment only. The tribunal determined that the claimant was disabled at the material times; it did not adjudicate the merits of the pleaded claims of discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination, or failure to make reasonable adjustments. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.6 and Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010 disability definition
- Goodwin v Patent Office four-question test
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP sequential approach
- Morgan v Staffordshire University burden of proof
- s.212(1) Equality Act 2010: substantial means more than minor or trivial
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.