Case 3200117/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Rouse v Hallmark Care Homes (Leigh-on -Sea) Limited Heard: East London Tribunal Hearing Centre (in person and hybrid) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200117/2022
- Decision date
- 9 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Members
- Panel members
- Mrs G Forrest, Mr L O'Callaghan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Rouse
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Mrs A Rouse did not meet the definition of a disabled person within section 6(2) of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. As a result, the claimant’s disability discrimination claims were struck out in their entirety because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them.
The Tribunal also dismissed the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim. The extracted judgment gives no further explanation for that outcome and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal found the claimant did not meet the definition of a disabled person in section 6(2) Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, so the disability discrimination claims were struck out in their entirety for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal stated only that the unfair dismissal claim failed; no further reasoning appears in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6(2) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.