Case 6002658/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Claire Hancox-Devine v Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002658/2023
- Decision date
- 10 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Scott Tribunal
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member Clarke, Tribunal Member Monaghan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Claire Hancox-Devine
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Southampton by CVP on 17, 19, 20 and 21 March 2025 before Employment Judge Scott and Tribunal Members Clarke and Monaghan. Mrs Claire Hancox-Devine brought complaints of constructive unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation, and discriminatory constructive dismissal against Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust.
The tribunal's unanimous judgment was that each complaint was not well-founded and did not succeed. The written record records only those dispositive outcomes and notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing; no monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of constructive unfair dismissal; the tribunal held it was not well-founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability; the tribunal held it was not well-founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments; the tribunal held it was not well-founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Complaint of victimisation; the tribunal held it was not well-founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint framed as discriminatory constructive dismissal; the tribunal held it was not well-founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.