Case 2600072/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs S Bates v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2021

Case reference: 2600072/2020
Decision date: 13 April 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Victoria Butler
Venue: Nottingham

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs S Bates

Respondent

Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing on 1 April 2021 in Nottingham, Employment Judge Victoria Butler, sitting alone, considered the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's allegations or complaints on the basis that they were out of time. That application was refused.

The respondent also applied for deposit orders in relation to allegations 1, 5 and 9 on the basis that they had little reasonable prospect of success. That application was refused as well. The claimant's application to amend the claim to include an allegation of direct disability discrimination, namely that the respondent had 'implemented weekly meetings' as set out in allegation 1 of the Scott Schedule, was allowed. The written record contains no merits determination and no monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The claimant's application to amend the claim to include an allegation of direct disability discrimination, described as the respondent having 'implemented weekly meetings' in allegation 1 of the Scott Schedule, was allowed. This judgment did not determine liability on the merits.	Other	Disability	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.