Case 2601258/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Sarah Taylor v Spring Health Care Ltd Record of a Hearing (Hybrid) at the Employment Tribunal — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601258/2022
- Decision date
- 12 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson Members
- Venue
- Nottingham Heard
- Panel members
- Miss J C Rawlins, Mr C Tansley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Sarah Taylor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the Respondent had conceded at an earlier hearing that the Claimant was disabled at the relevant time by dyslexia. The listed claims were discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, holiday pay, and unlawful deduction from wages.
The hearing on 9 October 2023 was adjourned to 4 and 5 December 2023. The Tribunal recorded that the Respondent had not complied with case management orders about witness statements and providing papers on a blue background, and that the Respondent's witness was unable to attend because her child was seriously ill.
The Tribunal made case management orders requiring the Respondent to explain the witness's non-attendance with supporting medical evidence and to provide the Claimant and the witness stand with documents printed on blue paper. The judgment did not decide the substantive claims or award any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records claims for discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments, but adjourns the hearing and does not determine the merits. | Other | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records a holiday pay claim, but adjourns the hearing and does not determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records an unlawful deduction from wages claim, but adjourns the hearing and does not determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
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.