Case 6000504/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Sophia Henry v The Office of the Public Guardian Record of a Closed Preliminary Hearing by CVP at the Employment Tribunal — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000504/2024
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton
- Venue
- Nottingham Heard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Sophia Henry
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the closed preliminary hearing on 30 January 2025, Employment Judge Broughton, sitting alone, dealt with clarification of the issues and an application to amend. The respondent had already conceded that the claimant's anxiety and keratoconus were disabilities at the relevant time under section 6 Equality Act 2010. The hearing concerned the scope of the claimant's disability discrimination case, which included reasonable-adjustments complaints about office attendance and homeworking, the recording of disability-related absence, the provision of auxiliary aids, and a harassment claim under section 26.
The tribunal applied the Selkent amendment approach and the balance of injustice and hardship, together with the section 123 Equality Act time-limit authorities. It held that a large part of the material in the claimant's later documents was not a new cause of action but further factual particularisation of the pleaded claims. That included allegations about Cally Beech, Hannah Kirk, Charlotte Spencer, Irem Malik, Marie Meir, and the continuing complaint that homeworking should be made permanent and that disability-related absences were being recorded as sickness absence. The judge also treated the March and May 2024 material as part of the same ongoing dispute about adjustments and the treatment of the claimant's condition.
The tribunal refused some discrete allegations as new or out of time, including the separate harassment allegations against Stephanie, Neil Faulkner, Amna, and Chris King, and the alleged failure to make adjustments at the 16 February 2024 meeting. It also refused the informal attendance review meeting in September 2023 as a separate allegation, while allowing some of the surrounding facts to remain as background to the pleaded claims. The judgment records that the amendment application succeeds in part and that a further telephone case management hearing would be listed to finalise the issues.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | This covers the pleaded disability discrimination / reasonable-adjustments case, including the office-attendance and homeworking PCP, the recording of disability-related absence as sickness absence, and the auxiliary-aid complaint about Dragon Dictate, Read and Write, and magnifying software. The tribunal did not determine the merits; it ruled on whether various allegations were further particulars or new matters, and allowed part of the amendment application while refusing some discrete incidents. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | This covers the section 26 harassment case based on alleged questioning of the claimant's disability, management conduct, and comments by named individuals. The tribunal permitted many allegations as further particulars or continuing conduct, but refused separate harassment allegations against some colleagues and one-off incidents as new or out-of-time. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore amendment test
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- balance of injustice and hardship
- s.123 Equality Act 2010 time limits
- just and equitable extension
- continuing act under s.123(3) Equality Act 2010
- Cocking v Sandhurst
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.