Case 2215788/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Dedovic v Gannons Commercial Law Ltd and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2215788/2023
- Decision date
- 24 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Ms N Sandler, Mr S Pearlman
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms A Dedovic
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London Central on 29 October to 6 November 2024 before Employment Judge A M Snelson with members Ms N Sandler and Mr S Pearlman, unanimously found that the Claimant’s complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to an ergonomic chair was well-founded, but held that it failed for want of jurisdiction because it was brought out of time. The tribunal also upheld the Claimant’s complaints of discrimination arising from disability identified in LoI paras 7.3.8 and 7.3.11, and upheld the alternative reasonable-adjustments complaint identified in LoI paras 9.2.2, 9.3.3 and 9.5.2.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to an ergonomic chair; the tribunal found it well-founded but held that it failed for want of jurisdiction because it was brought out of time. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaints of discrimination arising from disability identified in LoI paras 7.3.8 and 7.3.11 were found well-founded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Alternative complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments identified in LoI paras 9.2.2, 9.3.3 and 9.5.2, pleaded as an alternative to the complaint at LoI para 7.3.11, was found well-founded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Complaints of victimisation identified in LoI paras 10.2.1.1, 10.2.1.2, 10.2.2.1, 10.2.2.2, 10.2.2.4 and 10.2.3.1 were found well-founded. | Upheld | 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.