Case 1600330/2024 · Employment Tribunal
AB v Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600330/2024
- Decision date
- 16 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Othen Representation
- Venue
- By CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
AB
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims against Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board. The judgment records claims of disability discrimination, consisting of direct discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment, together with public interest disclosure detriment and victimisation.
All of the claims failed and were dismissed. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, but the written record does not set out the tribunal's detailed factual findings or reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records disability discrimination claims for direct discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments; both failed and were dismissed. Written reasons are not included in the judgment text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment lists harassment under the heading of disability discrimination; it failed and was dismissed. Written reasons are not included in the judgment text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes this as Public Interest Disclosure - Detriment; it failed and was dismissed. Written reasons are not included in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment lists victimisation as a claim that failed and was dismissed. The protected act or any linked protected characteristic is not specified in the judgment text. | 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.