Case 3201322/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Niamh Murphy v United Kingdom Health Security Agency — 2026
- Case reference
- 3201322/2024
- Decision date
- 28 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedDr Niamh Murphy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination (discrimination arising from disability under s.15 EqA 2010, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and indirect disability discrimination) and unlawful deduction from wages against the United Kingdom Health Security Agency. The case was heard at the East London Hearing Centre on 26-28 January 2026, with deliberation on 29-30 January 2026, before Employment Judge Gardiner sitting alone with reserved judgment.
The Tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled by reason of anxiety and panic attacks. After resolving disputes about the scope of the issues by reference to Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Trust, it found that none of the claimant's claims were well founded and dismissed them all. The £105 figure referenced is the statutory cap for unfair dismissal awards (£105,707) which did not arise on the dismissal of the claim.
The text of the PDF was truncated; the operative disposition is unambiguous and supports the dismissals stated above.
Claims and outcomes
3 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 referencesSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.