Case 3310418/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Lynch v The British Heart Foundation — 2025
- Case reference
- 3310418/2023
- Decision date
- 6 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Panel members
- Mrs B Handley-Howorth, Mr S Holford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Lynch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Watford by video on 3, 4, 5 and 6 December 2024, before Employment Judge Russell sitting with Mrs B Handley-Howorth and Mr S Holford. The written record states that the reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and are not set out in the document itself.
The tribunal dismissed the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal, finding that it was not well-founded. It also dismissed the disability discrimination complaints, namely indirect disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, each of which was found not well-founded.
The judgment states that the claim was dismissed in its entirety. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment, and no separate remedy figures are provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The complaint was pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal and was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The indirect disability discrimination complaint was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.