Case 1403507/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Boland v University of Winchester — 2024
- Case reference
- 1403507/2023
- Decision date
- 16 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mr N Thornback, Mr M Richardson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Boland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs A Boland brought claims against the University of Winchester. The tribunal sat at Southampton before Employment Judge Self with Mr N Thornback and Mr M Richardson as lay members. The judgment records that the hearing took place on 29, 30 and 31 January and 1 and 2 February 2024.
The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal claim was well founded and successful. It also found that the claim for failing to make a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010 was well founded and successful.
The section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim was found well founded and successful in part. The judgment does not set out the factual detail of the liability findings in the extract provided, but it clearly records those outcomes.
Remedy was not determined in this judgment. The tribunal directed that the issue of appropriate remedy would be heard separately and that directions would be sent in a separate document.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was well founded and successful. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim for failing to make a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010 was held well founded and successful. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim was held well founded and successful in part. | Upheld | 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.