Case 2601536/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Goll v Nottingham City Council — 2026
- Case reference
- 2601536/2024
- Decision date
- 2 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Goll
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed protected acts 10–17 and detriments 26–46 on withdrawal. The judgment does not specify the cause of action to which those withdrawn matters related.
The Tribunal found that Mr Goll was not a disabled person at the material time. It dismissed his claims of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The harassment claims related to age, sex and disability, the victimisation claim, and the direct age discrimination claim also failed and were dismissed.
The Tribunal further dismissed the claims of health and safety detriment and unauthorised deductions from wages. No monetary award or other remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Health and safety detriment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Protected acts 10–17 and detriments 26–46 were dismissed on withdrawal; the judgment does not identify their specific cause of action in this paragraph. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to age. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability. | Dismissed | Disability |
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.