Case 2402295/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs JM Quinn v Pryors Hayes Golf and Leisure Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402295/2021
- Decision date
- 28 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms A Ashworth, Mr D Lancaster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs JM Quinn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Manchester on 13 to 17 February 2023 before Employment Judge Mark Butler, Ms A Ashworth and Mr D Lancaster. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and does not set out any monetary award, because none was made.
All disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. The judgment records that the allegations of harassment related to disability, direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and discrimination arising from disability all did not succeed. The separate victimisation claim was also dismissed.
The tribunal also rejected the dismissal claims. It found that the claimant had not been constructively dismissed, and therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim brought on that basis. The wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed as well.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of discrimination arising from disability did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The allegation was harassment related to disability; the tribunal said it did not succeed and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The direct disability discrimination complaint did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint that the respondent failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was brought on a constructive-dismissal basis; the tribunal found the claimant had not been constructively dismissed, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed. |
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.