Case 2412901/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Lorraine Ward v Manchester City Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 2412901/2023
- Decision date
- 21 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs Sarah Humphreys, Mr Peter Stowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Lorraine Ward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's Equality Act 2010 claims. The claimant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, age and race, arising from not being shortlisted for interview for the Workplace Adjustment Hub manager role and from the respondent's Guaranteed Interview Scheme policy.
The tribunal found that the claimant had set out an arguable claim in her ET1 and further particulars, and that the respondent had been able to respond to it. It was not satisfied that the claimant had acted unreasonably or breached tribunal orders.
The tribunal concluded that the claim was arguable and had prospects of success, while noting that the merits had not been tested through evidence and cross-examination. The respondent's strike-out application under rule 38 was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment rejected the respondent's application to strike out the claim. The substantive disability discrimination claim was not adjudicated. | Other | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment rejected the respondent's application to strike out the claim. The substantive age discrimination claim was not adjudicated. | Other | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment rejected the respondent's application to strike out the claim. The substantive race discrimination claim was not adjudicated. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
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.