Case 1400228/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Garry v Southampton City Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400228/2022
- Decision date
- 13 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray AND
- Panel members
- Mr Benson, Mrs Killick
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Garry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Southampton by video before Employment Judge Gray with members Mr Benson and Mrs Killick, gave a unanimous judgment on Mrs B Garry's claims against Southampton City Council. The written judgment records that all of the claimant's complaints failed and were dismissed.
The dismissed complaints were direct discrimination relying on disability and race, discrimination arising from disability, failure in the duty to make reasonable adjustments, and indirect disability discrimination. The written record does not set out the tribunal's oral reasons or any detailed factual findings, and says written reasons would only be provided if requested at the hearing or within 14 days of the written record being sent.
No remedy was awarded or recorded because all complaints were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure in the duty to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination was dismissed. | Dismissed | 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.