Case 2600456/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Pacheco v Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600456/2019
- Decision date
- 14 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Pacheco
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 17 May 2021, Employment Judge Ahmed, sitting alone, refused the respondent's application to strike out the claim. The decision is recorded as a preliminary-hearing judgment only; the text does not contain any merits findings on the underlying unfair dismissal or discrimination complaints.
The written record states that case management orders for the future conduct of the case were issued separately. It also notes that the reasons for the judgment had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's note. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The preliminary hearing only determined the respondent's strike-out application. No merits decision on the underlying unfair dismissal claim is recorded in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The preliminary hearing only determined the respondent's strike-out application. No merits decision on the underlying disability discrimination claim is recorded in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The preliminary hearing only determined the respondent's strike-out application. No merits decision on the underlying race discrimination claim is recorded in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
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.