Case 2601626/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Katy Evans v University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust (“the third respondent” or “R3”) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601626/2022
- Decision date
- 16 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss Katy Evans
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Ahmed sitting alone, the Tribunal refused the Claimant's applications to amend her claim to add complaints of disability discrimination and victimisation.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant's complaint of detriment by reason of having made a protected disclosure had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out. The complaint of breach of contract was dismissed upon withdrawal. No remedy or monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal refused the Claimant's application to amend her claim to include a complaint of disability discrimination; this was a refusal of permission to amend, not a merits determination of an existing claim. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The Tribunal refused the Claimant's application to amend her claim to include a complaint of victimisation; this was a refusal of permission to amend, not a merits determination of an existing claim. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint was described as detriment by reason of having made a protected disclosure and was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The complaint of breach of contract was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.