Case 4107094/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107094/2023 Held at Aberdeen on April and May 2024 Employment Judge J M Hendry Members C Rochford D Massie Miss Danielle Grant v Kinghorn Bodyshop Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4107094/2023
- Decision date
- 28 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
- Panel members
- C Rochford, D Massie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107094/2023 Held at Aberdeen on April and May 2024 Employment Judge J M Hendry Members C Rochford D Massie Miss Danielle Grant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Aberdeen, gave oral reasons at the hearing on 2 May 2024 and issued the written judgment on 28 May 2024. It dismissed the claimant's sex discrimination claim and her claim that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010, recording that those claims were not well-founded.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's claim for notice. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment. The panel comprised Employment Judge J M Hendry, with lay members C Rochford and D Massie.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim under s.20 Equality Act 2010; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.20 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.
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.