Case 2500299/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Pritchard v Kebir House Veterinary Practice Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500299/2020
- Decision date
- 7 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
- Panel members
- Ms S Don, Mr A Lie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Pritchard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge Aspden sitting with Ms S Don and Mr A Lie on 4-7 May 2021. The written record states that the tribunal's unanimous judgment was that none of Mrs Pritchard's complaints was well founded.
The judgment therefore dismisses the claimant's complaints in full. On the face of the extracted text, the tribunal did not set out separate findings on each complaint in the short written record provided, and no remedy was awarded or recorded in the extract.
The written record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The extracted text does not include those oral reasons, so the public record here is limited to the unanimous dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The extracted judgment records only that none of the claimant's complaints was well founded; it does not set out the individual discrimination complaint in the text provided. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment records only that none of the claimant's complaints was well founded; it does not set out the individual unfair dismissal complaint in the text provided. | 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.