Case 2500230/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Z Todd v HSBC Bank plc — 2026
- Case reference
- 2500230/2025
- Decision date
- 31 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
- Panel members
- C Brayson, P Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Z Todd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously upheld Z Todd's complaint that HSBC UK Bank Plc discriminated against her by failing to provide her with a working printer for use at home. It dismissed the complaint concerning Mr Sproat's checking of 100% of her work between March 2024 and 11 March 2025 as not well founded.
The tribunal dismissed Todd's victimisation complaints under the Equality Act 2010 as not well founded. It held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine her other Equality Act complaints and struck them out. The written judgment records no monetary award or remedy. Summary reasons were given orally at the hearing, but the written judgment does not set out the tribunal's reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 | Failure to provide the claimant with a working printer for use at home. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Mr Sproat's checking of 100% of the claimant's work between March 2024 and 11 March 2025. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment refers to multiple victimisation complaints but does not describe them individually. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Other complaints under the Equality Act 2010 were struck out because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The judgment does not identify those complaints. | Struck out | — | — |
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.