Case 2409844/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Cunniff v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409844/2022
- Decision date
- 12 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Representatives
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Cunniff
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing held in private by CVP on 5 February 2024 before Employment Judge M Butler. The written record states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal struck out the claimant's complaint of direct disability discrimination in its entirety because it had no reasonable prospects of success. It also struck out the victimisation complaint in its entirety on the same basis.
The complaint of harassment related to disability was not struck out. However, the tribunal made that complaint subject to a deposit order because it considered it had little prospects of success.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of direct disability discrimination in its entirety was struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The complaint of victimisation in its entirety was struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to disability was not struck out, but it was made subject to a deposit order for having little prospects of success. | Other | 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.
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.