Case 3200153/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Miss D Smith v HealthRota Ltd — 2025

Case reference: 3200153/2024
Decision date: 31 January 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Illing Members
Panel members: Mrs M Legg, Mr L O'Callaghan

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss D Smith

Respondent

HealthRota Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal dismissed the indirect discrimination claim. It found that the claim had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit.

The Tribunal also dismissed the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, finding that it was not well-founded. The complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was found well-founded and succeeded.

The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested. No remedy figures are set out in the judgment text provided.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Indirect discrimination claim dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was found not well-founded and dismissed.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was found well-founded and succeeded. The short written judgment does not set out remedy.	Upheld	Disability	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.