Case 2401530/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K. Truelove v Salford Primary Care Together CIC — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401530/2024
- Decision date
- 28 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr Q Colborn, Dr B Tirohl
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K. Truelove
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms K. Truelove, brought claims against Salford Primary Care Together CIC under section 13 Equality Act 2010 for direct discrimination because of disability and under section 15 for discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal, sitting at Manchester on 23 and 24 June 2025 before Employment Judge Leach, Mr Q Colborn and Dr B Tirohl, held that neither equality complaint succeeded and both were dismissed.
The claimant also pursued a breach of contract complaint for notice pay. That complaint was withdrawn by the claimant and was dismissed following that withdrawal. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
The decision record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time. The judgment therefore records the outcomes but does not set out a written explanation of the tribunal's detailed reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 (direct discrimination) did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 (discrimination arising from disability) did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for notice pay was dismissed following withdrawal of that complaint by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.