Case 1600929/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R George v Cariad Domiciliary Support Services Ltd Kari Anne Bailey Key Group Services Ltd Angharad Warner Chris Beckingham-Paul Steve Barrett Lucy Williams — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600929/2023
- Decision date
- 2 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Cardiff on 22 September 2023, before Employment Judge DS McLeese sitting alone, the tribunal recorded that the claims against Kari Anne Bailey, Key Group Services Limited, Angharad Warner, Chris Beckingham-Paul, Steve Barrett and Lucy Williams were dismissed following withdrawal under rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The remaining claims against Cariad Domiciliary Support Services Ltd were claims of direct discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and indirect discrimination under section 15 of that Act. Those claims were also dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. The written record contains no findings on liability, no merits determination, and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination claim under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010; dismissed following withdrawal. The extracted judgment text does not restate the protected characteristic, but the case is listed as disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect discrimination claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010; dismissed following withdrawal. The extracted judgment text does not restate the protected characteristic, but the case is listed as disability discrimination. | 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.