Case 6002713/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Howells v University of South Wales Higher Education Corporation — 2026
- Case reference
- 6002713/2025
- Decision date
- 24 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Hunt Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Howells
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the parties had entered into a settlement agreement dated 10 June 2025. It held that the settlement agreement was validly entered into.
Because the settlement agreement was valid, the Tribunal held that the claimant's claim could not proceed. The claim was dismissed, and the judgment did not include any monetary remedy or detailed written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim type is from the gov.uk listing category. The judgment itself states only that the settlement agreement dated 10 June 2025 was validly entered into and therefore the claim could not proceed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim type is from the gov.uk listing category for public interest disclosure. The short judgment does not set out the pleaded whistleblowing issues. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Claim type is from the gov.uk listing category. The judgment does not set out any findings on the discrimination allegations because the claim was dismissed following the finding that the settlement agreement was valid. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Gender reassignment discrimination | Claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing category wording 'Transexualism'. The judgment does not set out any findings on the discrimination allegations because the claim was dismissed following the finding that the settlement agreement was valid. | Dismissed | Gender reassignment | — |
| Victimisation | Claim type is from the gov.uk listing category. The judgment does not set out the protected act or any findings on victimisation because the claim was dismissed following the finding that the settlement agreement was valid. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.