Case 2408948/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A McGrath v Hellermann Tyton Group plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408948/2023
- Decision date
- 12 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Representatives
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A McGrath
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made under rule 27 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 following a hearing at Liverpool by CVP on 27 January 2024 before Employment Judge Horne. The claimant was represented by Mr L Gabbie, solicitor, and the respondent by Mr M Dulovic, counsel.
The Tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal complaint was not permitted to proceed. It permitted the complaint of discrimination arising from disability and the complaints of failure to make adjustments to proceed, while noting that the failure to make adjustments complaints were subject to a separate deposit order. No other part of the claim was permitted to proceed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal is not permitted to proceed. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of discrimination arising from disability is permitted to proceed. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaints of failure to make adjustments are permitted to proceed, but are the subject of a separate deposit order. | Other | Disability | — |
| Other | The judgment states that no other part of the claim is permitted to proceed, but does not identify any further claim type in the extracted text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 27 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.