Case 1602267/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Dr R Heal v Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board and 3 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602267/2020
- Decision date
- 13 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James
Parties
5 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about why the claim should not be struck out. No party requested a hearing, so the matter was decided on the written representations.
The Tribunal relied on conclusions reached in related preliminary hearing judgments. It found that the claims concerning access to the Trainee Clinical Psychologist Programme were, in substance, about access to or acceptance on an education course within Part 6 of the Equality Act 2010. It also found that the University had power to afford access to the programme and associated placements, so the Employment Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear complaints about access to the programme, placements, and underpinning employment contract under Part 5.
The Tribunal further found that the claimant had not applied to the Minister or HEIW for work, had not applied to the programme through the correct route since 2017, and that any claim about a 2018 Research Assistant application was about two years out of time with no reason advanced for extending time. The claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success and were also found to be totally without merit.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claimant's claims under the Equality Act 2010 as having no reasonable prospect of success and as totally without merit. The protected characteristic is taken from the gov.uk listing category; the judgment text itself does not set out the alleged protected characteristics. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claimant's claims under the Equality Act 2010 as having no reasonable prospect of success and as totally without merit. The protected characteristic is taken from the gov.uk listing category; the judgment text itself does not set out the alleged protected characteristics. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claimant's claims under the Equality Act 2010 as having no reasonable prospect of success and as totally without merit. The protected characteristic is taken from the gov.uk listing category; the judgment text itself does not set out the alleged protected characteristics. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- rule 37
- no reasonable prospect of success
- section 56(5) Equality Act 2010
- Part 5 Equality Act 2010
- Part 6 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
- totally without merit
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.