Case 2400021/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Smith v Warrington & Halton Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400021/2020
- Decision date
- 15 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grewal
- Panel members
- Mr A Adolphus, Ms D Keyms
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs V Smith brought claims against Warrington & Halton Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The case was heard at London Central by CVP on 19 to 26 July 2021 before Employment Judge Grewal sitting with Mr A Adolphus and Ms D Keyms. The tribunal gave an oral judgment and later issued the written record of decision.
The tribunal unanimously held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded. No remedy was awarded in the written judgment.
The tribunal also held that the complaints of direct disability discrimination and disability-related harassment were not well-founded, but only in relation to acts occurring on or after 18 September 2019. It stated that it had no jurisdiction to consider complaints about acts before that date.
The tribunal further held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaints that the claimant had been subjected to detriments for having made protected disclosures. The written record does not set out further reasons beyond the oral judgment given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the direct disability discrimination complaint, so far as it related to acts on or after 18 September 2019, was not well-founded. It stated that it had no jurisdiction to consider complaints about acts before that date. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held that the disability-related harassment complaint, so far as it related to acts on or after 18 September 2019, was not well-founded. It stated that it had no jurisdiction to consider complaints about acts before that date. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaints of detriments for having made protected disclosures. | Other | — | — |
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.