Case 6012662/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Adams v Cardiff and Vale College — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012662/2025
- Decision date
- 4 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Ms R Hartwell, Mr M Vine
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms T Adams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed Ms T Adams's claim for constructive unfair dismissal, recording that it was not well founded.
The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for direct age discrimination, direct disability discrimination, and age and disability related harassment, recording that those claims were not well founded. The written judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The written judgment states the constructive unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and was dismissed; written reasons are not included. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The written judgment states the direct age discrimination claim was not well founded and was dismissed; written reasons are not included. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment states the direct disability discrimination claim was not well founded and was dismissed; written reasons are not included. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The written judgment states the age-related harassment claim was not well founded and was dismissed; written reasons are not included. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | The written judgment states the disability-related harassment claim was not well founded and was dismissed; written reasons are not included. | 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.