Case 1310365/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs AT Williamson v South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 1310365/2020
- Decision date
- 25 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs AT Williamson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Cookson, sitting alone in Birmingham on 4 to 7 June 2021, recorded that Mrs AT Williamson was a disabled person for the purposes of s.6 Equality Act 2010 from April 2019 by reason of depression and anxiety. That finding was made in the judgment, but no liability decision on the substantive discrimination allegations appears in the extracted text.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996 because it was withdrawn. The judgment says that dismissal was "on withdrawal", and it separately notes that the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 was not affected by that disposal.
The tribunal also granted leave to amend the claimant's case to include the claims identified in paragraphs 11.6, 11.7, 11.12, 11.13, 13.1(e), 13.2(e), 14.1(b), (c) and (d) of the amended further and better particulars dated 15 February 2021. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under s.94 ERA 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment also states that the claimant's separate automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 was not affected. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
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.