Case 2500287/2024 · Employment Tribunal
A Alderdice v NHS Business Services Authority HELD AT: Newcastle — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500287/2024
- Decision date
- 15 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
- Panel members
- E Euers, C E Hunter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Alderdice
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Aspden, sitting with E Euers and C E Hunter, found that A Alderdice's complaint that NHS Business Services Authority failed to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments was well founded. The upheld complaint was limited to the respondent's failure to provide a roller ball mouse between 29 August 2023 and 11 September 2023, which the tribunal held amounted to discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal recorded that it had jurisdiction to consider that complaint. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,240.56, made up of £1,100 for injury to feelings and £140.56 interest on that award under regulation 2 of the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996, calculated from 11 September 2023 to 15 April 2025 at 8% per annum. The judgment also states that none of the claimant's other complaints were well founded and that those complaints were dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal upheld only the complaint that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by failing to provide a roller ball mouse between 29 August 2023 and 11 September 2023. The judgment also states that none of the claimant's other complaints were well founded, but the extracted text does not identify those other complaints individually. | Upheld | Disability | £1,241 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,241
- across all upheld claims
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.