Case 2307116/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Ellis v Care Outlook Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2307116/2023
- Decision date
- 19 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall
- Panel members
- Miss Murphy, Mr Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Ellis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at London South by CVP on 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 June 2025 before Employment Judge Rice-Birchall, Miss Murphy and Mr Singh. Mrs Ellis was represented by her daughter, Ms Mavour, and Care Outlook Limited was represented by Mr Katz, solicitor. The written judgment records that the decision was given orally at the hearing and approved on 19 June 2025.
The tribunal rejected the unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that the complaint was not well-founded and that the claimant was fairly dismissed. The written record does not set out detailed reasons beyond that outcome.
The tribunal also dismissed both disability discrimination complaints. It found that the direct disability discrimination complaint was not well-founded, and it separately found that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was not well-founded. No monetary remedy is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was found not well-founded; the tribunal held that the claimant was fairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was found not well-founded and dismissed. | 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.