Case 3315967/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Employment tribunal upholds disability-discrimination claim against Milton Keynes Q-Academy
The claimant brought a complaint of unlawful discrimination relying on the protected characteristic of disability against Milton Keynes Q-Academy. The judgment records that no response had been received from the respondent.
- Case reference
- 3315967/2019
- Decision date
- 26 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K O’Driscoll
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss K O’Driscoll brought a complaint of unlawful discrimination relying on the protected characteristic of disability against Milton Keynes Q-Academy. The judgment records that no response had been received from the respondent.
The tribunal therefore entered judgment under Rule 21 and recorded that the claimant's complaint of disability discrimination succeeded. No findings on the underlying facts are set out in the extracted text beyond the absence of a response.
The judgment did not assess remedy. It states that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a subsequent hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Rule 21 judgment: no response having been received to the claimant's complaint, which succeeded. Remedy was left to a subsequent hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 21
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.