Case 2502434/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Gary Hughes v 1st Cloud Accountants Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502434/2022
- Decision date
- 27 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Steve
- Venue
- Newcastle
- Panel members
- Steve Wykes, James Weatherston
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Gary Hughes
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Newcastle on 26 June 2023, before Employment Judge Sweeney sitting with lay members Steve Wykes and James Weatherston, the tribunal gave a judgment by consent. It recorded that the complaints against both respondents of direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and victimisation were well founded and succeeded.
The tribunal also recorded that the complaint of detriment on grounds of making a protected disclosure was dismissed upon withdrawal. The parties had agreed settlement via ACAS, so they did not require a remedy hearing or any further order from the tribunal, and no monetary award was made in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of direct disability discrimination; judgment by consent recorded that it was well founded and succeeded against both respondents. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments; judgment by consent recorded that it was well founded and succeeded against both respondents. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Complaint of victimisation; judgment by consent recorded that it was well founded and succeeded against both respondents. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment on grounds of making a protected disclosure; dismissed upon withdrawal. | 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.