Case 1602401/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Hannan v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs — 2025
- Case reference
- 1602401/2024
- Decision date
- 23 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harfield
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Ms R Hartwell, Ms M Walters
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Hannan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously dismissed the complaints of constructive unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising in consequence of disability, victimisation, harassment related to disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The written judgment states that those complaints were not well-founded.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written record does not set out factual findings, legal analysis, remedy figures, or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal and states it was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was stated to be not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising in consequence of disability was stated to be not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation was stated to be not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was stated to be not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments was stated to be not well-founded and dismissed. | 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.