Case 3201738/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N O’Connor v Princess Alexandra NHS Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201738/2020
- Decision date
- 16 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms S Harwood, Ms B K Saund
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N O’Connor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing on 15 and 16 July 2021 before Employment Judge Burgher with members Ms S Harwood and Ms B K Saund, the tribunal heard Mrs N O’Connor’s disability discrimination claim against Princess Alexandra NHS Trust. It held that the Respondent had treated the Claimant unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of her disability, specifically by withdrawing a job offer, and the claim therefore succeeded.
The tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay £14,087.02 in total. That figure comprised £8,205.19 for immediate loss, £397.45 interest on that compensatory award, £5,000 for injury to feelings, and £484.38 interest on the injury to feelings award. It also recorded that the Claimant had received benefits and that the recoupment provisions applied, with a prescribed element of £8,205.19 covering 30 April 2020 to 16 July 2021 and an excess over that element of £5,484.38.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the Respondent treated the Claimant unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of her disability, specifically by withdrawing a job offer. | Upheld | Disability | £14,087 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,087
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £8,205
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.