Case 1800882/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Moore v Royal Mencap Society AT A HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800882/2021
- Decision date
- 28 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- LJ Anderson-Coe, GM Fleming
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Moore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Leeds by CVP video conference on 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 October 2022 before Employment Judge Lancaster with lay members LJ Anderson-Coe and GM Fleming. The claimant was Miss C Moore and the respondent was Royal Mencap Society.
The written judgment in the extracted record contains only the final decision. It records that all claims were dismissed. No written reasons are included in the extracted text because the judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Because the extracted decision does not contain the tribunal's reasoning, no further findings, legal analysis, or remedy figures can be extracted from the text supplied here.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written decision states only that all claims were dismissed and does not set out the individual reasons in the extracted text. The gov.uk listing for the case identifies disability discrimination as one of the claims. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written decision states only that all claims were dismissed and does not set out the individual reasons in the extracted text. The gov.uk listing for the case identifies unfair dismissal as one of the claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.