Case 6011475/2024 · Employment Tribunal
MISS C CHAPMAN v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust — 2026
- Case reference
- 6011475/2024
- Decision date
- 25 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Mensah
- Venue
- Birmingham West
- Panel members
- Ms M Rance, Mr P Kennedy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MISS C CHAPMAN
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Miss Chapman was disabled under the Equality Act 2010 by reason of hearing loss, but not disabled by reason of stress or a degenerative back condition. The written decision record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
It dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, the age discrimination claim, the disability discrimination claim, and the claim for part-time worker less favourable treatment. The judgment also records that the holiday pay and outstanding pay claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. No monetary award or other remedy is recorded in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The written order states this claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to an 'outstanding pay' claim and records that it was dismissed upon withdrawal, but does not specify the legal basis. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.