Case 2304949/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Alison Turnbull v Corner House Dental Practice — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304949/2023
- Decision date
- 30 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Krepski Tribunal
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member Dengate, Tribunal Member Cann
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Alison Turnbull
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAlison Turnbull’s claims against Corner House Dental Practice were heard at London South on 13-16 August 2024 before Employment Judge Krepski, Tribunal Member Dengate and Tribunal Member Cann. The written judgment records three complaints: unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination, and harassment related to disability. Each complaint was found not well-founded and was dismissed.
The public record provided here contains only the outcome. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by a party within 14 days. No monetary award is recorded in the extract.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written record states that the complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed. No separate reasoning or remedy is given in the extract; reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The written record states that the complaint of direct disability discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. No separate reasoning or remedy is given in the extract; reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The written record states that the complaint of harassment related to disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. No separate reasoning or remedy is given in the extract; reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | 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.