Case 1405760/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Lisa Whitfield v University of Bath — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405760/2023
- Decision date
- 16 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Lisa Whitfield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Bristol Magistrates Court on 10 September 2024, Employment Judge C H O’Rourke heard Ms Lisa Whitfield’s claims against the University of Bath, with Ms Whitfield appearing in person and the respondent represented by a solicitor. The tribunal recorded that the claims of direct disability discrimination and arrears of holiday pay were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The claimant’s personal injury claim, said to relate to the alleged discrimination, was withdrawn but not dismissed. The tribunal noted that Ms Whitfield had expressed a wish at the time of withdrawal to reserve the right to bring a further claim, and it concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to dismiss that claim, subject to Rule 52 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal recorded that this claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal recorded that this claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | A personal injury claim related to the alleged discrimination was withdrawn. The tribunal noted that, subject to Rule 52 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, and because the claimant had reserved the right to bring a further claim, it was not dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 52 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure 2013
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.