Case 1804431/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person/daughter v Miss Jones (cousel) This has been a remote hearing by CVP. A face to face hearing was not held because of the present Covid 19 circumstances. — 2020
- Case reference
- 1804431/2019
- Decision date
- 9 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Panel members
- Mr K Lannaman, Ms Y Fisher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person/daughter
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case by CVP on 8 and 9 October 2020 before Employment Judge JM Wade, sitting with Mr K Lannaman and Ms Y Fisher. The claimant was represented by her daughter and the respondent was represented by Miss Jones. The judgment records that the relevant time limits were extended so that the tribunal could determine the claimant’s complaints.
The tribunal then dismissed all of the claimant’s substantive claims. It found that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was not well founded. It also dismissed the claim described in the judgment as a Section 15 dismissal, which was treated as part of the claimant’s disability discrimination case.
The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was also found not well founded and dismissed. No financial award is recorded in the judgment, and no separate remedy figures are given.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim described in the judgment as a Section 15 dismissal was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. | 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.