Case 2418046/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Dawn Hewitson v Edge Hill University — 2023
- Case reference
- 2418046/2020
- Decision date
- 7 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mr Andrew Clarke, Ms Diane Kelly
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Dawn Hewitson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Liverpool before Employment Judge Liz Ord with two panel members. It recorded a unanimous decision on complaints brought by Mrs Dawn Hewitson against Edge Hill University.
The complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments labelled A, B, C and E were found to be out of time, and the tribunal stated that it had no jurisdiction to hear them. The judgment then recorded that all other complaints in the case were not well-founded and were dismissed.
The written record does not provide detailed reasons, noting that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the applicable time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments labelled A, B, C and E were found to be out of time, and the tribunal stated it did not have jurisdiction to hear them. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that all other complaints in the case were not well-founded and dismissed, but the short judgment does not identify those complaints in detail. | 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.