Case 6001835/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Shelley Leach (Nee Woods) v His Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue & Customs — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001835/2023
- Decision date
- 24 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Shelley Leach (Nee Woods)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the claimant's harassment related to disability claim in respect of the 20 April 2023 meeting and the failure to provide recommended ADHD coaching. The upheld harassment findings covered requests for information, a failure to enquire about the claimant's wellbeing which the tribunal described as de minimis, and placing the burden of finding an alternative role on the claimant. All other harassment allegations were dismissed.
The tribunal also upheld the reasonable adjustments claim, but only in relation to issues 24.1/24.3 and 24.6; the remaining aspects of that allegation were dismissed. The claim that the respondent treated the claimant unfavourably because of something arising from her disability was dismissed. The indirect sex discrimination claim was withdrawn by the claimant and recorded as dismissed on that basis.
The tribunal did not determine compensation in the liability judgment. It stated that compensation would be decided at a separate remedy hearing, with notice and orders to follow by separate letter.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was upheld in relation to the meeting of 20 April 2023, including requests for information, a de minimis failure to enquire about the claimant's wellbeing, placing the burden of finding an alternative role on the claimant, and the failure to provide recommended ADHD coaching. All other harassment allegations were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments was upheld in relation to issues 24.1/24.3 and 24.6. All other aspects of that allegation were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim that the respondent treated the claimant unfavourably because of something arising from her disability was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
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.