Loading…

- MR D MCGILL (HUSBAND) FOR THE v Respondent — Employment Tribunal 2022 | Tribunal Watch

Case 1309713/2020 · Employment Tribunal

- MR D MCGILL (HUSBAND) FOR THE v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 1309713/2020
Decision date: 28 April 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Cadney Date
Panel members: Ms L B Simmonds, Dr J Miller

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

- MR D MCGILL (HUSBAND) FOR THE

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal at Bristol, sitting on 11, 12 and 13 April 2022 before Employment Judge P Cadney with members Ms L B Simmonds and Dr J Miller, gave a unanimous judgment on Mrs C McGill's disability discrimination claims against Lloyd's Pharmacy Ltd. The claims were framed as a failure to make reasonable adjustments under s.20 Equality Act 2010 and disability harassment under s.26 Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal held that both claims were not well founded. The judgment records that each claim was dismissed, and no monetary remedy was awarded. The extract provided does not set out any separate compensatory or injury-to-feelings award, or any other financial disposition.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments under s.20 Equality Act 2010.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Harassment	Disability harassment claim under s.26 Equality Act 2010.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

2 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.

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.