Case 2302908/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sarah Grundy v London Ambulance Service NHS Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302908/2022
- Decision date
- 24 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Atkins Members
- Panel members
- Ms A Sansome, Mr S Gooden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sarah Grundy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously found that the claimant's failure to make reasonable adjustments claim was well founded and succeeded. The written judgment does not set out the factual findings or reasoning because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The Tribunal unanimously found that the victimisation claim was not well founded and did not succeed. It also found that the claim of unfair dismissal as a result of constructive dismissal was not well founded and did not succeed.
No remedy was awarded in this judgment. The case was to be listed for a half-day remedy hearing, with directions for the claimant to provide any injury to feelings statement or remedy submissions and for the respondent to reply.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments was well founded and succeeded. Remedy was reserved for a later hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records that the claim of victimisation was not well founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim of unfair dismissal as a result of constructive dismissal and records that it was not well founded and did not succeed. | 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.