Case 1402672/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Collins v Dorset Mental Health Forum — 2024
- Case reference
- 1402672/2022
- Decision date
- 6 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray AND
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mr Sleeth, Mr Wakeman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Collins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Southampton on 15 to 24 January 2024, before Employment Judge Gray and members Mr Sleeth and Mr Wakeman, the tribunal unanimously dismissed Mr M Collins's complaints against Dorset Mental Health Forum. The claims recorded in the written judgment were unfair dismissal, harassment related to disability, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure in the duty to make reasonable adjustments, and victimisation.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. It also records that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record. No monetary award or other remedy is recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure in the duty to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.