Case 1309059/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Moses,Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1309059/2019
- Decision date
- 10 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dimbylow
- Panel members
- Mrs S Bannister, Mrs D Rance
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms L Moses,Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case remotely by CVP in Birmingham on 7, 8 and 9 December 2020 before Employment Judge Dimbylow sitting with Mrs S Bannister and Mrs D Rance. The hearing took place during the coronavirus pandemic and the parties were represented by Ms L Moses for the claimant and Miss S Bowen for the respondent.
The unanimous judgment recorded that the claimant's claim for indirect disability discrimination contrary to section 19 Equality Act 2010 and the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to sections 20-22 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed by consent upon withdrawal by the claimant. No substantive findings on the merits of those claims were recorded in this judgment.
The tribunal also adjourned the matter to a later date to be fixed for an oral judgment and reasons, to be heard remotely by CVP before the same tribunal. The parties were directed to provide dates of unavailability to the tribunal office by 4pm on 16 December 2020 for the period from 1 January to 30 April 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant's indirect disability discrimination claim under section 19 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed by consent upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant's failure to make reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20-22 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed by consent upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
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.