Case 1600873/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Harvey v HM Prison and Probation Service — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600873/2022
- Decision date
- 18 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Ms M Walters, Mr M Taj
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Harvey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Welshpool in a hybrid hearing before Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan, Ms M Walters and Mr M Taj, unanimously accepted jurisdiction for any otherwise late claims and exercised its discretion to extend time to the date of presentation. The written record does not set out the oral reasons given at the hearing, but it records that the extension was granted as a preliminary matter.
The Tribunal then dismissed the Claimant's claims of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation, and unauthorised deduction from wages. No claim succeeded and the written decision does not record any monetary award.
The judgment notes that reasons were given orally and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days; no such request was made at the hearing. The written record therefore captures the outcomes only, rather than a detailed explanation of the Tribunal's reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | 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.
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.