Case 6009423/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Jannine Perryman v ADHD Foundation (In Voluntary Liquidation) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6009423/2025
- Decision date
- 29 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Humble REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Jannine Perryman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Jannine Perryman was an employee of ADHD Foundation (In Voluntary Liquidation) at the relevant time. It found that she made protected disclosures, was subjected to detriments contrary to section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996, and was unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures under section 103A of that Act.
The tribunal found that Ms Perryman was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at all material times. Her claim that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 was upheld. The separate claim of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 was not made out on the facts and was dismissed.
The tribunal also upheld Ms Perryman's victimisation claim under section 27 Equality Act 2010. Her sex discrimination claim was dismissed because the respondent was not found liable for the actions of the external contractor who made the discriminatory comments.
The respondent was ordered to pay £70,824. This comprised £43,559 for past financial loss, including interest, and £27,265 for injury to feelings, including interest. The judgment did not allocate these amounts among the upheld claims or state the interest amounts separately, and it recorded that the Recoupment Regulations did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Protected-disclosure detriment claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal for making protected disclosures under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010; the judgment does not identify the protected act or associate this claim with a particular protected characteristic. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The respondent was not found liable for the actions of the external contractor who made the discriminatory comments. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was not made out on the facts. | Dismissed |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £70,824
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £43,559
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 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.