Case 2408857/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Potter v St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408857/2021
- Decision date
- 13 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mrs D Price, Mr J Murdie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Potter
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously found that the claimant was fairly dismissed. It dismissed the ordinary unfair dismissal claim and the automatic unfair dismissal claim.
The Tribunal also found that the claimant was not subjected to detriments on the ground that she made protected disclosures. It further found that the respondent did not fail in its duty to make reasonable adjustments, and that the claimant was not discriminated against because of something arising as a consequence of her disability.
All claims were dismissed. The judgment records the outcome only; reasons were given orally and written reasons were not included in the supplied judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was fairly dismissed and that the ordinary unfair dismissal claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the automatic unfair dismissal claim failed and that the claimant was not subjected to detriments on the ground that she made protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the respondent did not fail in its duty to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant was not discriminated against because of something arising as a consequence of her disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.