Case 2501981/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Hughes v South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501981/2021
- Decision date
- 25 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Members
- Panel members
- Mr R Grieg, Mr R Dobson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Hughes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs K Hughes brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The tribunal sat at Teesside CFT from 14 to 17 November 2022 before Employment Judge Johnson with members Mr R Grieg and Mr R Dobson. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Miss Nowell of Counsel.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well founded and dismissed it. It also held that the disability discrimination complaints were not well founded and dismissed them, including the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability and the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Covers the claim of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability; the judgment dismissed this complaint as not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Covers the claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments; the judgment dismissed this complaint as not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.