Case 3305688/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Ram v Wilson James Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 3305688/2022
- Decision date
- 1 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms A Brown, Ms F Tankard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Ram
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Mrs N Ram's claims against Wilson James Ltd at Reading on 28, 29 and 30 April and 1 May 2026. The tribunal panel was Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst, Ms A Brown and Ms F Tankard.
The judgment records that the claims of unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, breach of contract, and unauthorised deduction of wages were each not well-founded and were dismissed. The written judgment records no monetary award or remedy.
The judgment states that summary reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written record does not set out further factual findings or legal reasoning beyond the dismissal of each claim as not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the breach of contract claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the claim as unauthorised deduction of wages and states that it was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.