Case 2500016/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Clarke v Les Woolston Haulage Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2500016/2025
- Decision date
- 29 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moss Appearances
- Venue
- Teesside
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Clarke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal, stating that it was not well founded.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's complaints of direct disability discrimination, discrimination in consequence of something arising from disability, indirect discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment, each on the basis that it was not well founded. The short judgment records the outcomes but does not set out factual findings, remedy figures, legal tests, or reasons.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct disability discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of discrimination in consequence of something arising from disability was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of indirect discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed; the listing and surrounding claims identify disability as the relevant protected characteristic. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the complaint of harassment was not well founded and was dismissed; the listing and surrounding claims identify disability as the relevant protected characteristic. | Dismissed |
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.