Case 3201331/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Mears v Cabinet Office — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201331/2023
- Decision date
- 30 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Park Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Mears
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims against The Cabinet Office for direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The judgment records that these claims were brought under sections 13, 15 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 respectively.
The tribunal held that the claimant's disability discrimination claims were not well founded and did not succeed. It dismissed all of the claimant's claims. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons to be provided only if requested within the applicable period.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under section 21 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 21 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.