Case 2402029/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Hannah Dreelan Lindsey Gaffney v Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402029/2024
- Decision date
- 8 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Hannah Dreelan Lindsey Gaffney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants brought equal value claims comparing their Band 6 Healthcare Quality Facilitator roles with Peter Mulford's Band 7 split role. They also brought sex discrimination claims arising from the pay disparity, and applied to amend their claims to include like work. The Tribunal recorded that the constructive dismissal claim was not considered at this stage one equal value hearing.
The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the job evaluation scheme was unreliable in banding the claimants at Band 6 and the comparator at Band 7. It also recorded that the claimants did not allege that the scheme itself discriminated because of sex. The equal value claims were struck out, the sex discrimination claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, and the amendment application to add like work was refused.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claimants' sex discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 had no reasonable prospect of success and were struck out. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Equal pay | The equal value claims were struck out at a stage one equal value hearing on the basis that there was a non-discriminatory and reliable job evaluation scheme valuing the claimants' roles and the comparator's role differently. The application to amend to include like work was refused. The prompt text is truncated, but includes the judgment and concluding reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Section 127 Equality Act 2010
- Section 131(5) Equality Act 2010
- Section 131(6)(b) Equality Act 2010
- Section 13 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 3(1)(a) Equal Value Rules
- Section 65(2)(b) 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.