Case 3200371/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L. Hedley-Mansfield v Essex County Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200371/2023
- Decision date
- 10 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Members
- Panel members
- Mrs B. Saund, Ms J. Houzer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L. Hedley-Mansfield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that, by consent, the Claimant's claim for accrued but untaken holiday succeeded. The parties agreed a gross sum of £346.21, from which tax and national insurance would be deducted at source, with interest payable on the net figure at 8%.
The Claimant's victimisation claim, identified as Issue 21(a), was dismissed on withdrawal. The Respondent conceded that the Claimant was a disabled person at all material times.
The remaining disability discrimination claims were dismissed. The direct disability discrimination claims, one harassment related to disability claim, and one reasonable adjustments claim were dismissed both because they were not well-founded and because they were presented out of time with no just and equitable extension. A further harassment related to disability claim and a further reasonable adjustments claim were dismissed because they were not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | By consent, the claim for payment for accrued but untaken holiday succeeded. The agreed gross amount was £346.21, subject to deduction of tax and national insurance, with interest on the net figure at 8%. | Upheld | — | £346 |
| Victimisation | Issue 21(a) was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claims at Issues 4(a) and 4(b) were dismissed as not well-founded and out of time, with no just and equitable extension. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability at Issue 15(a) was dismissed as not well-founded and out of time, with no just and equitable extension. Issue 15(b) was dismissed because it was not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments at Issue 9(b) was dismissed as not well-founded and out of time, with no just and equitable extension. Issue 9(a) was dismissed because it was not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £346
- across all upheld claims
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.