Case 6000550/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Hayley Moore v Dr Amit Koshal — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000550/2023
- Decision date
- 26 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Members
- Venue
- Nottingham Heard
- Panel members
- Ms R Wills, Mr J Aktar
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Hayley Moore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Hayley Moore brought claims for discrimination arising from disability, harassment, post-termination discrimination, and unauthorised deduction from wages. The tribunal accepted that she was disabled for Equality Act purposes because of complex PTSD, recurrent depressive disorder and emotionally unstable personality disorder, but found that she had not disclosed those diagnoses to Dr Amit Koshal at interview or on her health screening form, which referred only to past mental illness and B12 injections. It also accepted the respondent’s evidence that he did not know of her disability during employment.
The tribunal rejected the claimant’s account of bullying, hostile calls, and humiliating emails. It found her evidence unreliable, noted that the alleged emails were not produced, and accepted the respondent’s evidence and that of his witnesses. Applying the burden of proof approach in Igen Limited & Others v Wong, the tribunal held that there was no evidence from which it could find discrimination or harassment. It also found that the claimant did not tell the respondent about her suicide attempt on 2 January 2023 until 16 January 2023, and that the fit notes and medical records initially referred only to physical illness.
On the post-termination allegations, the tribunal did not accept that Dr Koshal disclosed the claimant’s resignation letter or suicide attempt to other staff, and it found no evidence that he had any influence over the separate practice’s hiring decision. The tribunal also rejected the claimant’s reliance on later medical records and fit notes as supporting her account. All discrimination-related claims were dismissed.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim also failed. The tribunal found that the claimant had signed a Deductions from Pay Agreement on 7 November 2022 authorising deductions for loss of property, including mobile phones. It accepted that the work phone had not been returned and held that the deduction from final wages was authorised. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 EqA 2010 claim for unfavourable treatment arising from disability. The tribunal found the claimant had not disclosed her diagnoses at interview or on the health screening form and accepted the respondent did not know of the disability during employment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Section 26 EqA 2010 claim based on alleged comments on 2 January 2023, later communications, and the 1 February 2023 email. The tribunal found no reliable evidence that the conduct occurred as alleged or had the required effect. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Post-termination discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010. The allegations concerned the 1 February 2023 email, the threatened withholding of salary, and the alleged disclosure of the resignation letter; the tribunal found no evidence supporting the claim and rejected the allegation that the resignation letter was shared with staff. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under section 13 ERA 1996 concerning deduction of the cost of the work mobile phone from final wages. The tribunal found the claimant had signed the Deductions from Pay Agreement authorising such a deduction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Igen Limited & Others v Wong [2005] IRLR 258
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.108 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.