Case 1402024/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Miss J Burdge v JCL UK Limited and 3 others — 2023

Case reference: 1402024/2022
Decision date: 1 December 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Barton
Panel members: Dr Von Maydell-Koch, Mr N Knight

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

5 named

Claimant

Miss J Burdge

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal heard claims by Miss J Burdge against JCL UK Limited and individual respondents at Southampton over seven hearing days in September and October 2023. The panel consisted of Employment Judge Barton, Dr Von Maydell-Koch and Mr N Knight. The written record states that the tribunal’s reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.

The tribunal unanimously dismissed the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, finding it not well-founded. It also dismissed the complaint of harassment related to disability, again finding it not well-founded.

The tribunal further dismissed the complaints of direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability, both on the basis that they were not well-founded. The complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was also dismissed as not well-founded.

No remedy was recorded in the written decision, and the judgment does not set out any monetary award or split of compensation between the claims.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Harassment	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Constructive dismissal	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	—	—

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.