Case 1306941/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Smallridge v Walsall Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 1306941/2023
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bennett
- Venue
- Midlands West
- Panel members
- Mr D McIntosh, Ms M Stewart MBE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Smallridge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Midlands West Employment Tribunal on 13 February 2025 before Employment Judge Bennett, with Mr D McIntosh and Ms M Stewart MBE sitting as the lay members. The claimant, Miss J Smallridge, appeared in person and the respondent, Walsall Council, was represented by Mr M Kelly and Ms W Miller.
The tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment states in plain terms that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed by the respondent.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant’s disability discrimination complaint framed as a failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. The pleaded matters identified in the judgment were the alleged failure to provide monthly welfare meetings, the failure to electronically record meetings, and allowing meetings to exceed 30 minutes.
No monetary award was recorded. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal’s usual procedure.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments complaint under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. The allegations listed were failing to provide monthly welfare meetings, not electronically recording meetings, and allowing meetings to exceed 30 minutes. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
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.