Case 1304140/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Michelle Dixon Shea v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304140/2023
- Decision date
- 27 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Michelle Dixon Shea
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public on 27 February 2024 before Employment Judge Dean. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr J Smith, Solicitor. The tribunal dealt only with amendment issues; it did not determine liability or any monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 complaint to add the label of harassment contrary to s.26 Equality Act 2010, as detailed at paragraph 2.2 Harassment(i), was allowed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the complaint described at paragraph 2.2 Direct Disability Discrimination(i) was already a complaint presented to the Employment Tribunal and identified in the List of Issues, so no further amendment was required. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant's proposed amendments at paragraph 2.2 Direct Disability Discrimination(ii) to add new complaints of further acts of direct discrimination because of disability were found to be out of time, and it was not just and equitable to extend time, so those amendments were refused. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
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.