Case 8001059/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Maley v Logistics (Brighton) Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001059/2024
- Decision date
- 27 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Jones
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Maley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 25 March 2025, Employment Judge A Jones considered whether Ms S Maley had shown that she was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010. The claimant said she suffered from PTSD, insomnia, low self-esteem, flashbacks, anxiety, depression and ADHD, and referred to mirtazapine medication. The tribunal recorded that she had been given repeated opportunities to identify the condition or conditions relied on and to provide relevant medical records, but she did not comply with those orders.
The judge accepted that the claimant was taking mirtazapine, but there was no evidence about when it started, what it was intended to treat, how long it would be taken, or how her condition affected normal day-to-day activities. The tribunal found it remained unclear which condition or conditions were being relied on as amounting to a disability, and there was no oral or documentary evidence from which it could conclude that she was a disabled person between April and July 2024. The disability claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found the claimant had not established disability status within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.