Case 2306323/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Sophia Streeks v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2306323/2023
- Decision date
- 15 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bradford Representation
- Venue
- Remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Sophia Streeks
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Sophia Streeks brought claims against South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust for unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The case was heard remotely by Employment Judge Bradford on 11 to 15 August 2025. The judgment records that each claim was not well-founded.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim brought under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed the disability discrimination claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.
A separate claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 was also dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and no written reasons were to be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim of discrimination arising from disability contrary to s15 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- s15 Equality Act 2010
- ss20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
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.