Case 1402077/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Employment tribunal upholds disability-discrimination claim against Cornwall Hospice Care Limited
An employment tribunal has upheld a disability discrimination claim against Cornwall Hospice Care Limited. The tribunal recorded a total award of £7,000.
- Case reference
- 1402077/2022
- Decision date
- 25 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mensah
- Venue
- Birmingham West
- Panel members
- Miss S Outwin, Mr P Simpson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Verity Hill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Birmingham West before Employment Judge Mensah with members Miss S Outwin and Mr P Simpson, reached a unanimous decision on the claimant's disability discrimination complaints against Cornwall Hospice Care Limited. Two of the four complaints succeeded: direct disability discrimination in bringing the disciplinary hearing forward, and unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability in respect of the same decision to bring the hearing forward.
The remaining two complaints, concerning the refusal to postpone the disciplinary hearing (framed both as direct discrimination and as unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability), were found not well-founded and were dismissed.
By way of remedy the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £657.36 net (calculated as 4 days at £164.34) with interest at 8% over 991 days of £156.04, plus £5,000 for injury to feelings with interest of £1,186.85 calculated under the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996, producing a total award of £7,000.25. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will only follow on request.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination claim concerning the refusal to postpone the disciplinary hearing was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim concerning the decision to bring the disciplinary hearing forward was well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 Equality Act-type claim: unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability (decision to bring the disciplinary hearing forward) was well-founded and succeeded. Remedy figures in the judgment are not split per claim. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 Equality Act-type claim: unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability (decision not to postpone the disciplinary hearing) was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,000
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £657
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 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.