Case 6004357/2025 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 6004357/2025
- Decision date
- 17 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail
- Venue
- Bodmin
- Panel members
- Mrs R. Barrett, Mrs P. Skillin
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that Mrs L. Tregunna was constructively unfairly dismissed by Cornwall Council and the Governing Body of Richard Lander School. It also held that the dismissal amounted to discrimination arising from disability contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.
The claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Claimant £27,462.96 within 21 days; the judgment did not apportion that sum between the upheld claims or provide a component breakdown.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes the finding as constructive unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £27,463
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 15 of the Equality Act 2010
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.