Case 2502655/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Handysides v South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 2502655/2019
- Decision date
- 19 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
- Venue
- Newcastle
- Panel members
- Mrs CE Hunter, Mr R Greig
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Handysides
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 18 and 19 March 2021 before Employment Judge Sweeney, sitting with Mrs CE Hunter and Mr R Greig. The Claimant, Mr D Handysides, appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by James English, solicitor.
The written judgment records that the Claimant's indirect disability discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The Claimant's remaining complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment related to disability were found not well founded and were dismissed.
No monetary remedy is recorded in the written decision. The record also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 | The written judgment records that the Claimant's claim of indirect disability discrimination was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments was held not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was held 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.