Case 1301189/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Pilgrim v Herefordshire & Worcestershire Health & Care NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 1301189/2021
- Decision date
- 13 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Pilgrim
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mrs N Pilgrim was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of anxiety and depression from 19 February 2018. It found that her symptoms began in late 2017, were more than minor or trivial, and had a long-term effect by February 2018. The finding was based on GP records, sickness absence records, counselling and psychology evidence, and the tribunal accepted that periods of improvement on Amitriptyline and Sertraline did not mean the impairment had ceased.
The ET1 ticked boxes for unfair dismissal, race discrimination, disability discrimination and arrears of pay, but the particulars box said "see attached" and no attachment was filed. Applying the amendment authorities, including Selkent, Cocking, Galilee, Mechkarov and Parry, the tribunal allowed amendment to add disability discrimination allegations about sickness absence management, the ill-health retirement process and dismissal, and allowed the injury allowance pay claim. It refused the standalone disability allegation about a lack of support forums, the race discrimination allegations, and the whistleblowing victimisation and automatic unfair dismissal allegations, taking into account the age of the matters, the lack of particulars and the time-limit position.
Any race discrimination complaint already in the ET1 was dismissed because it was entirely unparticularised. The judgment did not finally determine the ordinary unfair dismissal claim or the amended disability discrimination and unlawful deduction claims, which were left to be listed for a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the claimant was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of anxiety and depression from 19 February 2018. Permission to amend was granted for the disability allegations at paragraphs 5(b) to (e) of the Case Management Summary and refused for paragraph 5(a). No merits finding on liability was made in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Any race discrimination complaint already in the ET1 was dismissed because it was entirely unparticularised. Permission to amend to add the proposed race discrimination allegations was refused as historical and out of time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | Permission to amend was refused for the proposed whistleblowing victimisation and automatic unfair dismissal allegations. The tribunal found that the ET1 contained no whistleblowing particulars and that the evidence did not justify extending time. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Permission to amend was granted to add the claim that injury allowance was not paid from 23 March 2020 to 10 November 2020. The tribunal did not decide the merits of that claim in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.48(3) ERA 1996
- s.111 ERA 1996
- Bexley Community Centre v Robertson
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Limited
- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore
- Baker v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Mechkarov v Citibank
- Secretary of State for BEIS v Parry
- Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
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.