Case 6001000/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001000/2023
- Decision date
- 25 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Plymouth
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that on 28 April 2023 the respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment by not telling Mrs K. Kernick-Alee in advance of the disciplinary interview which offenders the disciplinary questions would relate to. That was the only claim upheld in the extract provided.
The judgment states that, save for that point, the claimant’s claims failed. The respondent, Secretary of State for Justice, was ordered to pay compensation of £3,574.51 within 14 days.
The tribunal also ordered that the Report containing the Review of CM’s Further Serious Offence must not be disclosed to any third party without the tribunal’s permission.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | On 28 April 2023 the respondent failed to make the reasonable adjustment of telling the claimant in advance of the disciplinary interview which offenders the disciplinary questions would relate to. The extracted text does not separate any other claim labels or itemise the award. | Upheld | Disability | £3,575 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,575
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.