Case 2303808/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr G Morgan v South East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust — 2024

Case reference: 2303808/2022
Decision date: 10 May 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Leith
Panel members: Mrs Costley, Mr Tansley

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr G Morgan

Respondent

South East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At Croydon, sitting via CVP on 7, 8, 9 and 10 May 2024, Employment Judge Leith sat with Mrs Costley and Mr Tansley in the case of Mr G Morgan against South East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust. The tribunal recorded that the indirect disability discrimination complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal.

The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded only in part, and only in relation to paragraph 5.1.2 of the list of issues. The remaining part of that complaint was dismissed. The complaint of discrimination arising from disability was dismissed, and the unfair dismissal complaint was also dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the extract.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

This 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	Indirect disability discrimination was dismissed upon withdrawal.	Withdrawn	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded in part, limited to paragraph 5.1.2 of the list of issues; the remaining part was dismissed.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Discrimination arising from disability failed and was dismissed.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Unfair dismissal	The unfair dismissal complaint failed and was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.