Case 6000521/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Catherine Shawcross v SMG Europe Holdings Limited t/a ASM Global and 5 others — 2025

Case reference: 6000521/2023
Decision date: 17 December 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge JM Wade
Panel members: Mr W Roberts, Ms P Pepper

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

7 named

Claimant

Catherine Shawcross

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal heard the case at Leeds by CVP on 1 to 5, 8 to 10, 16 and 17 December 2025. The claimant did not attend and the respondents were represented by counsel.

The unanimous decision was that the claimant's complaints of discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment related to sex, harassment related to disability and victimisation were dismissed. The judgment states that reasons were announced at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the extended time limit.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Complaint of discrimination arising from disability was dismissed. Written reasons are not included in the provided judgment text.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed. Written reasons are not included in the provided judgment text.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Harassment	Complaint of harassment related to sex was dismissed. Written reasons are not included in the provided judgment text.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Harassment	Complaint of harassment related to disability was dismissed. Written reasons are not included in the provided judgment text.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Victimisation	Complaint of victimisation was dismissed. Written reasons are not included in the provided judgment text.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.