Case 2601948/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Atkinson v Chesterfield Borough Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 2601948/2024
- Decision date
- 28 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Atkinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 20 November 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time or at all, so the tribunal made a determination on the papers under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024.
The judgment records that the claims of disability discrimination succeeded. The decision does not identify any monetary award at this stage.
The claimant sought damages for injury to feelings and a recommendation, but the tribunal stated that neither remedy could be determined on the papers. A separate remedy hearing was listed for 13 May 2025, with further case management directions contained in a separate order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The respondent failed to present a valid response on time or at all. Liability was determined under Rule 22, and the tribunal recorded that the disability discrimination claims succeeded. Remedy, including injury to feelings and any recommendation, was not determined on the papers and was listed for a separate hearing on 13 May 2025. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.