Case 6006432/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms W Moon v South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006432/2024
- Decision date
- 7 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms W Moon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Bristol by CVP on 30 September 2025 before Employment Judge Midgley. The respondent applied to strike out the claimant's claims, or alternatively for a deposit order, and the tribunal dealt with those applications only.
The tribunal granted the application to strike out the direct sexual orientation claim. It found that claim had no reasonable prospects of success and ordered that it be struck out.
The applications in respect of the unfair dismissal claim and the claim of discrimination arising from disability were refused on both grounds. Those claims were allowed to proceed and were listed for final hearing, with orders relating to that hearing stated to be contained in a separate order.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The respondent's application to strike out the direct sexual orientation claim was granted because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent's application to strike out, alternatively for a deposit order, was refused on both grounds. The claim was listed to proceed to final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim of discrimination arising from a disability was not struck out and the respondent's application was refused on both grounds. The claim was listed to proceed to final hearing. | Other | 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.