Case 3311044/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr A Williams, Solicitor — 2026
- Case reference
- 3311044/2023
- Decision date
- 16 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms A Brosnan, Ms L Thompson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs C Deacon's claims against UK Training & Development Limited were heard at Watford from 13 to 16 July 2026. The tribunal dismissed all five complaints as not well-founded: unfair dismissal, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, harassment related to disability, and victimisation.
Employment Judge French approved the judgment on 16 July 2026. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; the written judgment records no factual findings or legal tests explaining the dismissals. It states that written reasons would be provided only on a request made at the hearing or within 14 days of the written decision being sent. No monetary remedy is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment does not specify the protected act or any associated protected characteristic. | 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.