Case 6002662/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Pearn v NGB Associates Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002662/2024
- Decision date
- 28 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Danvers REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- By Video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Pearn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing, the tribunal recorded that Ms E Pearn had pleaded a claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. The Respondent applied to strike out that claim, or alternatively for a deposit order, but the tribunal refused that application.
The judgment states that the Claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal (notice pay), and failure to make reasonable adjustments therefore proceed to a final hearing. It does not contain any finding on the merits of those claims, any liability decision, or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The Respondent's application to strike out the reasonable adjustments claim, or to make it the subject of a deposit order, was refused; the claim was allowed to proceed to final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment is a preliminary hearing decision and does not determine the merits. The Claimant's unfair dismissal claim was stated to proceed to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment is a preliminary hearing decision and does not determine the merits. The Claimant's wrongful dismissal claim (notice pay) was stated to proceed to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
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.