Case 2402226/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Blair v Your Choice SEND Residentials Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402226/2024
- Decision date
- 15 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S.Green Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Blair
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent informed the Tribunal on 29 May 2024 that it would not be defending the claimant's claims. The Tribunal stated that the respondent had been given proper notice of the claims and of the requirement to respond under the Tribunal's rules of procedure.
In the absence of any substantive response, the Tribunal entered default judgment in favour of Miss E Blair under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The sole substantive finding recorded in the written judgment was that the respondent had directly discriminated against the claimant on the grounds of disability under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010.
The written record does not identify any monetary award or other remedy. It also notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal issued a default judgment under Rule 21 after the respondent said it would not defend the claim and had not filed a substantive response. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Equality Act 2010 section 13
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.