Case 1300280/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Goulding v Heritage English Blind Company Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1300280/2021
- Decision date
- 9 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Noons Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Goulding
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Birmingham via CVP on 9 March 2022 before Employment Judge Noons, the tribunal refused the claimant's applications to amend her case to add a harassment complaint and a breach of contract complaint about not being allowed accompaniment at the disciplinary hearing. The respondent's strike-out application was refused for the claims under sections 13 and 15 of the Equality Act 2010 and for the breach of contract claims, but it succeeded for the claims under sections 20 and 21 about failure to make reasonable adjustments, which were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal then made a deposit order of £100 for each of four complaints: direct discrimination about the respondent allegedly treating sickness absence as misconduct, direct discrimination about dismissing the claimant because of her absence, discrimination arising from disability about dismissing the claimant because of her absence, and breach of contract/wrongful dismissal relating to non-payment of notice pay. No deposit order was made for the breach of contract complaint about the alleged failure to hear the claimant's appeal.
This was an interlocutory decision and did not determine liability on the merits. The disability discrimination and breach of contract claims listed above were allowed to proceed subject to the deposits, while the reasonable adjustments claims were removed from the proceedings.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The claimant's application to amend her claim to include harassment was refused. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's application to amend her claim to include breach of contract for failing to allow her to be accompanied at her disciplinary hearing was refused. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination claim under section 13 relating to the respondent allegedly treating the claimant's sickness absence as an act of misconduct; the respondent's strike-out application was refused and a £100 deposit was ordered. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination claim under section 13 relating to the respondent allegedly dismissing the claimant because of her absence; the respondent's strike-out application was refused and a £100 deposit was ordered. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability claim under section 15 relating to the respondent allegedly dismissing the claimant because of her absence; the respondent's strike-out application was refused and a £100 deposit was ordered. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of success
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.