Case 1306779/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr Mark Shrives-Wright (solicitor) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1306779/2020
- Decision date
- 4 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr P Talbot, Mr R White
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Birmingham on 28 February to 3 March 2022 before Employment Judge Perry with lay members Mr P Talbot and Mr R White, determined three matters arising from Ms Catherine Broady's claims against NFU Mutual (Service Company) Limited. The judgment records that it was heard by the cloud video platform and that reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's disability discrimination complaint. It found that she was not directly discriminated against because of her disability, in contravention of Part 5 Equality Act 2010. The judgment does not set out any remedy because no discrimination claim succeeded.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint, stating that the complaint was not well founded. In addition, it recorded that the claimant's claim for wages (pay) had not been pursued and was dismissed on withdrawal. No monetary award was made on any claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held the claimant was not directly discriminated against because of disability in contravention of Part 5 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint that the claimant was unfairly dismissed was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claim for wages (pay) had not been pursued and was dismissed on withdrawal; no further legal basis for that claim was stated in the judgment. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.