Case 6001868/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Y Marsden v Circle Health Group Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001868/2024
- Decision date
- 19 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley On
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Y Marsden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Leeds Employment Tribunal over 6, 7 and 8 May 2025 before Employment Judge Deeley. The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The record therefore contains the dispositive findings rather than a written explanation of the tribunal's reasoning.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of health and safety detriments under section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed the claimant's complaint that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010, which was the disability discrimination complaint in the case.
The tribunal further dismissed the claimant's complaint of unfair (constructive) dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No monetary award, injury to feelings award, or other remedy is recorded in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint of health and safety detriments under section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failures to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Complaint described as unfair (constructive) dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 98 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.