Case 2408114/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Valerie Cochrane v North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2408114/2022
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Valerie Cochrane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester on 7 and 8 June 2023 before Employment Judge Feeney. The written judgment record names the claimant as Valerie Cochrane and the respondent as North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust.
The decision states that the claimant's direct age discrimination claim, direct sex discrimination claim, and unfair dismissal claim all failed and were dismissed. The supplied text does not include the tribunal's substantive factual reasoning or any legal analysis beyond the recorded outcomes.
The record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No monetary award or other remedy is recorded in the written decision provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The written decision records that the claimant's direct age discrimination claim failed and was dismissed. No separate reasoning or award is set out in the supplied text. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written decision records that the claimant's direct sex discrimination claim failed and was dismissed. No separate reasoning or award is set out in the supplied text. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written decision records that the unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. No remedy is recorded in the supplied text. | 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.