Case 2409845/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Harwood v Bolton NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2409845/2022
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Dr H Vahramian, Mr A Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Harwood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C Harwood brought complaints against Bolton NHS Foundation Trust of failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment related to disability. Sitting at Manchester over 27 January to 6 February 2025, Employment Judge Dunlop with Dr H Vahramian and Mr A Murphy held that the reasonable adjustments complaint was out of time insofar as it related to March 2018 to July 2019, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time for that period.
The tribunal then found that the remaining complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments were not well-founded. It also found that the complaints of harassment related to disability were not well-founded. The claim was dismissed in full.
No monetary award was made and the written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the reasonable adjustments complaint was out of time insofar as it related to the period March 2018 to July 2019, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The remaining reasonable adjustments complaints were not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found the claimant's complaints of harassment related to disability were not well-founded. | 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.
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.