Case 2500338/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Katrina Stobbs v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500338/2022
- Decision date
- 2 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Pam
- Venue
- Newcastle
- Panel members
- Pam Wright, Clare Hunter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Katrina Stobbs
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was well founded and succeeded. It dismissed the complaint of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability as not well founded.
The Respondent was ordered to pay £8,000 compensation for injury to feelings and £515.51 interest, making a total of £8,515.51. The Tribunal also made a recommendation under section 124(2)(c) Equality Act 2010 that the Respondent provide a formal written agreement permitting the Claimant to work from home, requiring office attendance once a month, subject to the stated review terms.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record does not set out the detailed factual findings or reasoning behind the Tribunal's conclusions.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | £8,516 |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,516
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 124(2)(c) 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.