Case 2403401/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Perkin v Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403401/2023
- Decision date
- 17 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms C Doyle, Mr G Pennie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Perkin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's disability discrimination complaint alleging a failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. It found that claim had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal, stating that the complaint was well-founded and that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. In the written judgment, the only monetary award specified was a basic award of £4,282.50.
The tribunal also stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was well-founded and that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. Only a basic award is specified in the written judgment. | Upheld | — | £4,283 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,283
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,283
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 20/21 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
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.