Case 6000141/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr McLean (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000141/2022
- Decision date
- 1 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
- Venue
- Hull
- Panel members
- Mr N Pearse, Ms J Rathbone
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr McLean (counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Hull Employment Tribunal on 2 to 6 October 2023 before Employment Judge Davies with lay members Mr N Pearse and Ms J Rathbone. The claimant, Ms L Robinson, was represented by Mr McLean and the respondent by Ms Kight.
The written judgment records that the complaints of unfair dismissal, failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, and victimisation were not well-founded and were dismissed. No separate liability findings, reasoning, or remedy figures are set out in the written record provided.
The decision was sent to the parties on 1 July 2024. The record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time. On the extracted text available, there is no monetary award and no indicated split between claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim pleaded as failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim pleaded as unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | 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.