Case 2601070/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E. Hughes v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust — 2026
- Case reference
- 2601070/2024
- Decision date
- 18 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton
- Venue
- Midlands East
- Panel members
- Ms Dean, Mr Chester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E. Hughes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a hearing from 8 to 14 May 2026, the tribunal found Miss E. Hughes's claim of unfair dismissal under section 94 ERA well founded. The claim succeeded subject to a Polkey deduction of 75%.
The tribunal found that the complaints under section 15 and sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 were not well founded and dismissed them. The judgment records no monetary award because remedy was reserved pending further written submissions.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim under section 94 ERA was well founded and succeeded, subject to a Polkey deduction of 75%. Remedy was reserved pending further written submissions. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey deduction
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.