Case 1400781/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Warwick v The Oak Tree Nursery & Pre-School Limited and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400781/2024
- Decision date
- 3 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Appearances
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss E Warwick
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Southampton by CVP between 13 and 20 October 2025 before Employment Judge Gray. The claimant appeared in person with her mother, and the respondents were represented by counsel. The written record states that oral reasons were given at the hearing, but no written reasons are provided in the document supplied.
The judgment records that the claimant's complaints of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination failed and were dismissed. The disability discrimination complaint is described as including allegations of something arising from disability, failure in the duty to make reasonable adjustments, harassment, and discriminatory constructive dismissal.
No monetary remedy is recorded in the judgment, and no award is made against any respondent in the written decision provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment records a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal, which was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination complaint covered something arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment, and discriminatory constructive dismissal; all were 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.