Case 3300652/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3300652/2019
- Decision date
- 8 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr S Bury, Mrs L Thompson
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Watford on 6, 7 and 8 October 2020, Employment Judge R Lewis with members Mr S Bury and Mrs L Thompson recorded that the claimant was, at the material time, a person with disability in accordance with s.6 Equality Act 2010. Despite that finding, the tribunal held that she was not unfairly dismissed by the First Respondent, and her unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's breach of contract claim against the First Respondent. Her disability discrimination claims, however formulated, were also dismissed. The written record does not set out separate remedy findings because no monetary award was made.
The judgment further records that the claimant's public interest disclosure claims, described as whistleblowing claims, were dismissed on withdrawal. The claimant's application for an anonymity order was refused.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant's breach of contract claim against the First Respondent failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not unfairly dismissed by the First Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was a person with disability within s.6 Equality Act 2010, but her disability discrimination claims, howsoever formulated, failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records that the public interest disclosure claims were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.