Case 6001577/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L McCarthy v University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust — 2026
- Case reference
- 6001577/2024
- Decision date
- 17 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mrs Metcalf, Mr Richardson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L McCarthy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously dismissed the Claimant's complaints for constructive unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, part-time worker discrimination, direct disability discrimination, harassment related to disability, discrimination arising from disability, victimisation, and breach of contract / redundancy.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written record does not provide findings of fact, legal analysis, remedy figures, or a written explanation for why the complaints failed.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Judgment describes this as constructive unfair dismissal; no written reasons are provided in the text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | No written reasons are provided in the text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | Judgment describes this as part-time worker discrimination; no written reasons are provided in the text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Judgment identifies direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability; no written reasons are provided in the text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Judgment describes this as harassment related to disability; no written reasons are provided in the text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | No written reasons are provided in the text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Judgment describes this as breach of contract / redundancy; no written reasons are provided in the text. |
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.