Case 1400924/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs L Carroll v The British Red Cross Society — 2021

Case reference: 1400924/2020
Decision date: 17 August 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Fowell
Panel members: Ms S Maidment, Mr H Launder

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs L Carroll

Respondent

The British Red Cross Society

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal, sitting at Plymouth by video on 5 and 17 August 2021 before Employment Judge Fowell with Ms S Maidment and Mr H Launder, unanimously found that Mrs L Carroll's dismissal was unfair. It also upheld her complaint of discrimination on grounds of disability against The British Red Cross Society.

The written judgment record does not give the tribunal's reasons, because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons are provided in the record supplied. The decision therefore records the outcomes only, without setting out the factual findings or legal analysis behind them.

The tribunal directed that the remedy hearing would take place on 14 October 2021 at 10.00, and that any further evidence from either party should be served by 4pm on 23 September 2021. No remedy figure is recorded in this judgment record.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The judgment records that the claimant's dismissal was unfair. The written record does not set out the tribunal's reasoning because reasons were given orally at the hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Disability discrimination	The judgment records that the complaint of discrimination on grounds of disability was upheld. The written record does not set out the tribunal's reasoning because reasons were given orally at the hearing.	Upheld	Disability	—

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.