Case 1302584/2018 · Employment Tribunal
in person v Mr P Roberts, solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 1302584/2018
- Decision date
- 2 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton
- Venue
- Stoke
- Panel members
- Mr D McIntosh, Mr J Kelly
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Stoke before Employment Judge Broughton with Mr D McIntosh and Mr J Kelly, heard the case from 17 to 19 December 2019. The claimant was represented by herself and the respondent by Mr P Roberts, solicitor.
In the written judgment dated 2 January 2020, the tribunal recorded that the claimant’s claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, harassment and failure to make reasonable adjustments failed and/or were presented out of time. Each of those claims was dismissed.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Includes the pleaded disability discrimination claims and the failure to make reasonable adjustments claim, which the tribunal recorded as having failed and/or been presented out of time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The written judgment states this claim failed and/or was presented out of time; no separate reasoning is set out in the written record. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | Failure to make reasonable adjustments was expressly mentioned in the judgment, but the taxonomy has no standalone reasonable-adjustments claim type. It is recorded here separately to preserve the tribunal's wording. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.