Case 2418828/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H J Wells v Brake Bros Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2418828/2020
- Decision date
- 19 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mr B Rowen, Mr J Murdie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H J Wells
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously found that the claimant's claim under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 for failure to make reasonable adjustments was presented within the relevant time limit in section 123 of the Act because it related to a continuing state of affairs.
The tribunal found the reasonable adjustments claim well-founded and it succeeded. It also found the claimant's claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 for discrimination arising out of disability well-founded and it succeeded.
The tribunal further found the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal well-founded and it succeeded. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not set out any remedy or monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 for failure to make reasonable adjustments; tribunal also found it was lodged within the relevant time limit as a continuing state of affairs. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 for discrimination arising out of disability. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 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.