Case 1305842/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs S Hewitt v The DPO Centre Ltd and 3 others — 2025

Case reference: 1305842/2023
Decision date: 5 March 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Bansal Representation

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

5 named

Claimant

Mrs S Hewitt

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a judgment on an application to amend the list of issues heard on 10 February 2025 and issued on 4 March 2025. The claimant sought to add that her dismissal on 14 April 2023 was direct disability discrimination by R1, and also to add a broader complaint that she was discriminated against in the application of the termination procedure or process.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This 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
Disability discrimination	Application to amend allowed to add a complaint that the claimant's dismissal on 14 April 2023 was an act of direct disability discrimination by R1 only; this was not a merits finding.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Application to amend refused in relation to alleged discrimination in the application of the termination procedure/process; the tribunal said the proposed amendment was not sufficiently particularised, and the judgment refers to possible Occupational Health referral and other management behaviours, procedures, practices and decisions.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.