Case 2603327/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Adesta Hill v Nottingham City Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 2603327/2021
- Decision date
- 23 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Wilson
- Panel members
- Mr RN Loynes, Mr JD Hill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Adesta Hill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case in person at Nottingham over three days on 20, 21 and 22 March 2023. Employment Judge N Wilson sat with members Mr RN Loynes and Mr JD Hill.
The tribunal found the claimant's complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 to be well founded. The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 as not well founded.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested. No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the judgment text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 was well founded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records that the complaint of victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 27 of the Equality Act 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.