Case 6007934/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 6007934/2024
- Decision date
- 28 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wyeth Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningPriory Healthcare Limited conceded that Miss D Beckford was wrongfully dismissed in breach of contract because she should have received one month's notice pay. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay her the gross sum of £2,081.05.
The tribunal found that Miss Beckford was fairly dismissed. Her complaints of direct disability discrimination, disability-related harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and discrimination arising from disability were found not well founded and were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The respondent conceded that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed in breach of contract and should have received one month's notice pay. | Upheld | — | £2,081 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was fairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Disability-related harassment under s.26 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20–22 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,081
- across all upheld claims
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.