Case 2303774/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. S. Brinton v Country Cousins Homecare Agencies Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303774/2023
- Decision date
- 17 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra Sitting
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr. W. Dixon, Mr. C. Wilby
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. S. Brinton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at London South Employment Tribunal by CVP video conference and gave an oral judgment on 17 March 2025. It unanimously dismissed the Claimant's complaint of public interest disclosure detriment and her complaint of public interest disclosure automatic constructive unfair dismissal against Country Cousins Homecare Agencies Limited.
The Tribunal also dealt with two disability discrimination complaints. It recorded that the failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint was well founded, but dismissed it because it was out of time and it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The indirect disability discrimination complaint was dismissed. The written record does not include any monetary award, and reasons were given orally.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Public interest disclosure detriment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Public interest disclosure automatic constructive unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal said this complaint was well founded, but dismissed it because it was out of time and it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.