Case 6003749/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss I Scott v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2026
- Case reference
- 6003749/2024
- Decision date
- 30 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Serr
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms J Rathbone
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss I Scott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, finding that those complaints were not well-founded.
The tribunal found two complaints of victimisation well-founded: a statement made in a meeting on 21 March 2024 and an email sent by Ms Kilroy on 6 June 2024. The remaining complaints of victimisation were dismissed.
The judgment records oral reasons only and does not set out any remedy award or detailed written findings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Two complaints of victimisation were well-founded and succeeded; the remaining complaints of victimisation were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.