Case 1601217/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mx C Kimber v Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board — 2024
- Case reference
- 1601217/2023
- Decision date
- 18 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Mr M Cronin, Mr A Fryer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mx C Kimber
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Cardiff on 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16 April 2024 before Employment Judge S Jenkins, with Mr M Cronin and Mr A Fryer. Its written judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal upheld Mx C Kimber's complaints of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, failure to make reasonable adjustments under section 21 of the Equality Act 2010, and unfair dismissal under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It dismissed the complaints of harassment related to disability under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 and victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010.
The written record does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning or any remedy award. It records only the formal outcomes of each complaint and the date the judgment was sent to the parties, 18 April 2024.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim recorded as a complaint of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 EqA 2010. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Recorded as harassment related to disability under section 26 EqA 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded under section 27 EqA 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim recorded as a failure to make reasonable adjustments under section 21 EqA 2010. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 15 EqA 2010
- section 21 EqA 2010
- section 26 EqA 2010
- section 27 EqA 2010
- section 94 ERA 1996
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.