Case 2305359/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J. Walker v London Borough of Bromley — 2023
- Case reference
- 2305359/2021
- Decision date
- 27 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- London South via CVP
- Panel members
- Mr W. Dixon, Mr S. Cockerton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J. Walker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss J. Walker brought complaints against London Borough of Bromley heard at London South via CVP on 23 to 27 October 2023 before Employment Judge T.R. Smith, with Mr W. Dixon and Mr S. Cockerton as lay members. The tribunal found that two complaints of a failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability were well-founded and succeeded: the respondent should have provided the claimant with a specialised office chair in a timely manner, on or about the middle of May 2021, and should have reduced the claimant’s hours of work whilst on duty, on or about 23 November 2020.
The tribunal dismissed the remaining complaints of a failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability. It also found that the respondent did not unreasonably fail to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures 2015. No monetary award is recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal upheld the reasonable-adjustment complaints about providing a specialised office chair in a timely manner and reducing the claimant’s hours of work whilst on duty, but dismissed the remaining reasonable-adjustment complaints. | Upheld | 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.