Case 2502708/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Hoggart v Student Loans Company Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2502708/2019
- Decision date
- 13 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Members
- Panel members
- Mrs B Kirby, Mr A Lie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Hoggart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Hoggart was employed as a Student Finance Assessor from April 2008 until dismissal with effect from 18 June 2019. The tribunal accepted that she had depression and anxiety, and that by far the vast majority of her absences were related to that disability. It also accepted that her attendance over many years was poor, with levels commonly between 25% and 40%, and that in the 12 months before dismissal her absence level remained around 30% to 40%.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the respondent had a potentially fair reason relating to attendance/capability or SOSR, followed a fair process, and was entitled to dismiss when it could not reasonably be expected to wait longer for improvement. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal accepted that the dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of absences arising in consequence of disability, but held that the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and that the reasonable-adjustments complaints failed because no substantial disadvantage was established on the alleged PCPs, or an adjustment had already been made. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Section 15 Equality Act 2010
- Section 20 Equality Act 2010
- Ridge v HM Land Registry
- Spencer v Paragon Wallpapers Limited
- BS v Dundee City Council
- East Lindsey District Council v Daubney
- HJ Heinz Company Limited v Kenrick
- Hensman v MOD
- Hardys & Hansons PLC v Lax
- O'Brien v Bolton St. Catherine's Academy
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.