Case 2407898/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K. Rimmer-Knight v His Majesty’s Passport Office — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407898/2022
- Decision date
- 21 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs. A. Booth, Mr. D. Lancaster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K. Rimmer-Knight
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Manchester on 5, 6 and 7 June 2024 before Judge Callan, Mrs. A. Booth and Mr. D. Lancaster. The claimant was Ms K. Rimmer-Knight and the respondent was His Majesty’s Passport Office. The tribunal’s unanimous judgment was that the claimant’s claims of direct disability discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, discrimination arising in consequence of disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, and breach of contract were all not well founded and were dismissed.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010; found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising in consequence of disability contrary to section 15 Equality Act 2010; found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for breach of contract; found not well founded and dismissed. | 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.