Case 1601122/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M V Dela Cruz v Aneurin Bevan University Health Board — 2025
- Case reference
- 1601122/2023
- Decision date
- 17 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
- Venue
- Newport
- Panel members
- Ms M Walters, Mrs J Beard
Parties
2 namedMrs M V Dela Cruz
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Filipino Band 5 staff nurse with anxiety and depression (a conceded disability), was employed by Aneurin Bevan University Health Board from 8 October 2003 until she resigned with immediate effect on 8 February 2023. She brought claims of constructive unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, harassment related to disability, and less favourable treatment as a part-time worker. Hearings took place over seven days at Newport before Employment Judge C Sharp, Ms M Walters and Mrs J Beard.
All claims were dismissed. The Tribunal accepted that the constructive unfair dismissal claim raised arguable points about the fairness of the grievance process, but on the evidence found in favour of the respondent. The Tribunal concluded that the four discrimination and part-time worker claims had no reasonable prospect of success from the start, with no evidence linking the matters complained of to any protected characteristic.
On the respondent's costs application of £20,000, the Tribunal applied the two-stage test, exercised its discretion in favour of an order in respect of the four hopeless claims, and ordered the claimant to pay the full £20,000 sought. The Tribunal applied AQ Ltd v Holden but considered the claimant had persisted despite explicit warnings from the Tribunal and respondent. Considering Vaughan and the claimant's means (no current income, household reliance on her husband, but a house projected to be mortgage-free in approximately six years), the Tribunal concluded she would in time be able to pay the £20,000. PDF text truncated from 84,819 characters.
Claims and outcomes
6 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 referencesSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.