Case 2602124/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Hill v Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602124/2019
- Decision date
- 3 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Hill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 24 March 2020, Employment Judge Ahmed sitting alone considered the claimant's application to amend her claim. The claimant, Mrs M Hill, sought to add complaints of disability discrimination, specifically discrimination arising from disability and a failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments, together with a complaint of victimisation.
The tribunal refused the application to amend. The judgment records no substantive determination of the proposed discrimination or victimisation complaints themselves; the only outcome recorded is refusal of the amendment application.
The case was listed for a further telephone preliminary hearing on 14 April 2020. The judgment does not record any remedy, award, or legal test, and it was issued as a short written record following oral reasons given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Application to amend the claim to add complaints of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments was refused at a preliminary hearing; no merits determination was made on the proposed discrimination claims. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Application to amend the claim to add a victimisation complaint was refused at a preliminary hearing; no merits determination was made on the proposed victimisation claim. | 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.