Case 1600267/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Whitty v Torfaen County Borough Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 1600267/2024
- Decision date
- 13 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
- Venue
- Newport
- Panel members
- Mrs J Kiely, Mrs M Farley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Whitty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Newport before Employment Judge S Moore with Mrs J Kiely and Mrs M Farley, gave unanimous judgment after a hearing on 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13 February 2025.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was found not well founded and dismissed. The complaints of direct disability discrimination and disability arising from discrimination were also found not well founded and dismissed.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time limit. No remedy or monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The rule 60 judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed. Written reasons are not included. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The rule 60 judgment states that the complaint of direct disability discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. Written reasons are not included. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The rule 60 judgment states that the complaint of disability arising from discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. Written reasons are not included. | Dismissed | 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.