Case 2405531/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Wareing v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs — 2019
- Case reference
- 2405531/2018
- Decision date
- 17 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs D Radcliffe, Mr W Haydock
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Wareing
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims against the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. The claims identified in the judgment were failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010, and victimisation contrary to section 27, recorded in the judgment text as Equality Act 2020.
The Tribunal, sitting unanimously, held that both claims failed and were dismissed. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record does not set out the tribunal's factual findings or reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records a claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010, which failed and was dismissed. No written reasons are included in the supplied judgment text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records a victimisation claim contrary to section 27 Equality Act 2020, as stated in the text, which failed and was dismissed. No written reasons are included in the supplied judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2020
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.