Case 1301745/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v HRS Family Law Solicitors Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1301745/2023
- Decision date
- 22 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr D Spencer, Dr G Hammersley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Birmingham, after hearing on 8 to 19 July 2024 before Employment Judge Edmonds with Mr D Spencer and Dr G Hammersley, the tribunal gave an oral judgment with a written record dated 22 July 2024. On a unanimous basis, the complaint of unfair (constructive) dismissal was not well-founded and the claimant was found not to have been unfairly dismissed. The complaint of breach of contract was also dismissed.
The tribunal held that the disability reasonable adjustments complaint succeeded only in part. It was well-founded from 26 May 2022 in relation to a failure to reduce the claimant's workload and a failure to consider removing supervisory responsibility from the role. The same complaint did not succeed for the period before 26 May 2022, or in relation to the alleged failure to reduce the need to attend in person and remote hearings or to transfer files to colleagues.
On a majority basis, the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was well-founded and succeeded. A remedy hearing was listed for 21 and 22 November 2024, so this judgment did not determine any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair (constructive) dismissal was unanimously found not well-founded. The tribunal said the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint was unanimously found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability succeeded only in part. It was upheld for the period from 26 May 2022 in relation to reducing the claimant's workload and considering removal of supervisory responsibility, but failed as to the period before 26 May 2022 and as to the alleged failures to reduce attendance at in-person and remote hearings or to transfer files to colleagues. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was upheld on a majority basis. | Upheld | Disability | — |
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.