Case 1305965/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Raphael v 1) Trentside Manor Care Limited 2) Mr T Dhadda 3) Mr P Dhadda — 2023
- Case reference
- 1305965/2018
- Decision date
- 30 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs R Pelter, Mr J Sharma
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Raphael
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Birmingham by CVP and gave a unanimous liability judgment. It found that the claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were well founded and succeeded. It also found that the claimant’s complaint of disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 was well founded and succeeded.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s complaints of direct disability discrimination and direct age discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested, so the short written record does not set out the tribunal’s detailed factual reasoning or any remedy figure.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint under s15 Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaint under s13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination complaint under s13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Age | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.