Case 1406514/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs H Gardner v J. S. Bloor (Services) Limited — 2022

Case reference: 1406514/2020
Decision date: 25 April 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge J Bax
Venue: Bristol
Panel members: Mr E Beese, Mrs D England

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs H Gardner

Respondent

J. S. Bloor (Services) Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mrs H Gardner succeeded in her claims of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal stated that the Respondent contravened section 39(2)(d) of the Equality Act 2010. The Claimant's direct discrimination claim was dismissed.

The tribunal also held that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed. It found, however, that there was a 50% chance she would have been fairly dismissed if a fair procedure had been followed. Directions were given for a separate remedy hearing, so no award was recorded in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

This 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	Claim for discrimination arising from disability succeeded; the tribunal found the Respondent contravened section 39(2)(d) of the Equality Act 2010.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Claim of direct discrimination was dismissed.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the dismissal unfair, but also found there was a 50% chance the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed if a fair procedure had been followed. Remedy was listed for a separate hearing.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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.