Case 6013800/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Katie Ward v South Devon NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013800/2024
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Katie Ward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal granted Ms Ward's application to amend her claim to include harassment on the grounds of disability.
The Tribunal refused Ms Ward's application to amend her claim to add detriment and automatic unfair dismissal on grounds of protected disclosure. It also refused the Respondent's application to strike out the constructive unfair dismissal claim on grounds of no reasonable prospect of success, but granted a supplementary application for a deposit order.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment granted the Claimant's application to amend her claim to include harassment on the grounds of disability; it did not determine the merits of that claim. | Other | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refused the Claimant's application to amend her claim to add detriment and automatic unfair dismissal on grounds of protected disclosure; it did not determine a substantive protected disclosure claim. | Other | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment refused the Respondent's strike-out application on the constructive unfair dismissal claim, but granted a supplementary application for a deposit order; it did not determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of success
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.