Case 1304441/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Johnston v University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 1304441/2021
- Decision date
- 10 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Johnston
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 26 September 2022 before Employment Judge Dean sitting alone, the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's complaints did not succeed. The hearing was a preliminary issue decision only and did not determine the substantive merits of the claims.
The tribunal found that the claimant's complaints had little reasonable prospect of success in two respects: indirect discrimination related to sex under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010, and unlawful failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments in relation to disability under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. Having regard to the claimant's ability to pay, the tribunal ordered a deposit of £150 within 21 days as a condition of pursuing each of those complaints.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The respondent's strike-out application did not succeed, but the tribunal found this indirect discrimination complaint had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered a £150 deposit as a condition of pursuing it. | Other | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The respondent's strike-out application did not succeed, but the tribunal found this reasonable-adjustments complaint had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered a £150 deposit as a condition of pursuing it. | Other | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £150
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- little 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.