Case 1806606/2023 · Employment Tribunal
AA v [XX] University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Heard: 23 and 28 April 2025 Deliberations — 2025
- Case reference
- 1806606/2023
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Panel members
- Mr D Wilks, Mr D Eales
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was the tribunal's unanimous remedy judgment under sections 119 and 124 of the Equality Act 2010. It made no award in respect of pecuniary loss.
For the head described as 'Auxiliary Aid failure', the tribunal awarded £18,000 for injury to feelings, together with a 10% ACAS uplift of £1,800 and interest of £4,038. For the head described as 'Section 15 offer withdrawal', the tribunal awarded £25,000 for injury to feelings, a 10% ACAS uplift of £2,500, interest of £3,942, and aggravated damages of £2,000.
The tribunal also applied a 10% ACAS uplift to the aggravated damages element, producing a further £200, with £22 interest on that amount. The total of all Equality Act awards including interest was £57,502.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The remedy judgment labels this head of loss as 'Auxiliary Aid failure'. It was treated here as disability discrimination. The award was £18,000 for injury to feelings, £1,800 ACAS uplift, and £4,038 interest. | Upheld | Disability | £23,838 |
| Disability discrimination | The remedy judgment labels this head of loss as 'Section 15 offer withdrawal'. It was treated here as disability discrimination. The award was £25,000 for injury to feelings, £2,500 ACAS uplift, £3,942 interest, and £2,000 aggravated damages, with a further £200 uplift and £22 interest on that element. | Upheld | Disability | £33,664 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £57,502
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Sections 119 and 124 Equality Act 2010
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.