Case 6010727/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Victoria Oldham v Lloyds Bank plc — 2026
- Case reference
- 6010727/2024
- Decision date
- 6 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Victoria Oldham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the complaint of unfair dismissal because it was not presented within the applicable time limit. Although it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time, the tribunal found that it was not presented within a further reasonable period.
The tribunal also dismissed one reasonable-adjustments complaint, limited to the alleged provision, criterion or practice of applying the respondent's attendance policy and attendance triggers rigidly. That complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. The judgment records that the remaining failure-to-make-reasonable-adjustments claims will continue to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and was not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Only the reasonable-adjustments complaint arising from the respondent applying its attendance policy and attendance triggers rigidly was dismissed as out of time. The judgment states that the remaining failure-to-make-reasonable-adjustments claims will continue to a final hearing. | Dismissed | 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.