Case 2415692/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Holland v Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415692/2020
- Decision date
- 10 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms Gilchrist, Mr Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Holland
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the correct name of the respondent is Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust.
The tribunal unanimously found that the claimant was not constructively dismissed in accordance with s95(1) of the Employment Rights Act. His unfair dismissal claim was therefore not upheld and was dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the disability-related Equality Act claims. It found that the reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 was not upheld, and that the harassment related to disability claim under s26 of the Equality Act 2010 was not upheld.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not constructively dismissed in accordance with s95(1) of the Employment Rights Act and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim was that the respondent failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The claim was harassment related to disability under s26 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s95(1) Employment Rights Act
- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- s26 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.