Case 2304954/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Devito v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304954/2022
- Decision date
- 8 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge England Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Devito
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal removed a second respondent from the case, then dealt with the remaining claims by summary decision. The constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the Claimant did not have two years' service, with the judgment referring to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The disability discrimination claim, treated as a claim relying on s.13 of the Equality Act 2010, was struck out because it had no reasonable prospects of success. The victimisation claim was also struck out on the same basis. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Dismissed because the Claimant did not have two years' service, as referred to under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment understood this as a claim relying on s.13 of the Equality Act 2010 and struck it out because it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Struck out because it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The underpayment of wages claim was dismissed because it was issued out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The underpayment of wages claim, described as replicating the breach of contract claim, was dismissed because it was issued out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 of the Equality Act 2010
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.