Case 3312550/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Lovell v National Highways Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3312550/2022
- Decision date
- 9 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mr P Hough, Mr D Wharton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Lovell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints under sections 15 and 26 of the Equality Act 2010 against National Highways Limited, alleging unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability (ADHD, anxiety and OCD) and harassment related to disability. The case was heard at Reading by a full panel comprising Employment Judge George with non-legal members Mr P Hough and Mr D Wharton over six days in 2025.
Unanimously, one s.15 complaint succeeded — the level 5 performance score given in June 2022 (LOI 2(f)). By majority (Mr Wharton and Mr Hough; EJ George dissenting), two further s.15 complaints (removal of M2 Operations work on 4 May 2022 and being told a PIP would be imposed) were dismissed; two further s.15 complaints were unanimously dismissed. Unanimously, one harassment complaint succeeded in respect of comments made by Ms Webber on 4 May 2022; a further harassment complaint was dismissed by majority.
Remedy was confined to compensation for injury to feelings, dealt with at the same hearing. The Tribunal awarded £500 for injury to feelings caused by the s.15 finding (with no interest, the loss being fully mitigated by 8 November 2022) and £1,500 for the harassment finding plus £360 interest at 8% over 36 months — a total of £2,360.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability (s.15 EqA 2010): unanimous finding that giving the claimant a level 5 score in June 2022 (LOI 2(f)) was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. £500 injury to feelings; no interest as loss fully mitigated by 8 November 2022. | Upheld | Disability | £500 |
| Disability discrimination | Remaining s.15 EqA 2010 complaints (LOI 2(a), (c), (d), (e)) failed; (d) and (e) by majority with EJ George dissenting; (a) and (c) unanimously dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability (s.26 EqA 2010): unanimous finding that Ms Webber's comments to the claimant on 4 May 2022 ("I don't know whether I would have appointed you", "Well I didn't hire you", "I didn't sign off your probation either") amounted to harassment. £1,500 injury to feelings plus £360 interest = £1,860. | Upheld | Disability | £1,860 |
| Harassment | Remaining harassment complaint dismissed by majority (EJ George dissenting). | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,360
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.