Case 6009303/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 6009303/2024
- Decision date
- 5 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard REPRESENTATION
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss V Tompkins withdrew her direct disability discrimination claim at the outset of the hearing. The tribunal dismissed that claim following its withdrawal.
The tribunal found that the reasonable adjustments claim had been brought outside the applicable time limit. It held that it was not just and equitable to extend time and dismissed the claim. It also found that the claims of discrimination arising from disability and automatic unfair dismissal were not well founded and dismissed them. The written judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim dismissed following its withdrawal at the outset of the hearing. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability claim found not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim found not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable extension of time
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.