Case 2206149/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Furley (counsel) For the v Ms R Dawson (solicitor) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2206149/2022
- Decision date
- 18 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Dr L William, Ms S Brazier
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Furley (counsel) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr R Healey was disabled during the material period. It held that his Equality Act 2010 section 21 claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments was well founded and succeeded, and that his section 15 claim for discrimination arising from disability was also well founded and succeeded.
The tribunal further found that Mr Healey was unfairly dismissed. The written decision records only the liability findings; it does not set out any monetary award or split any remedy between the claims.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note appended to the record of decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Equality Act 2010 s.21 failure to make reasonable adjustments. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Equality Act 2010 s.15 discrimination arising from disability. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.