Case 6023144/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr A Riat v Dr A Walling and Dr S Nathan t/a Ashfield Medical Centre and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 6023144/2024
- Decision date
- 15 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Armstrong Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Dr A Riat
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed Dr A Riat's complaints of pregnancy and maternity discrimination and victimisation as not well-founded. The judgment records the outcomes but not the Tribunal's reasons, which were given orally at the hearing.
The unfair dismissal complaint was upheld against the first respondent, Dr A Walling and Dr S Nathan trading as Ashfield Medical Centre. The Tribunal found that Dr Riat had been unfairly dismissed and declined to reduce compensation to reflect a chance that she would have been fairly dismissed in any event. No compensation was determined in this judgment; the remaining remedy issues were listed for a further hearing on 24 September 2026.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint succeeded against the first respondent only. The remaining remedy issues were listed for a further hearing on 24 September 2026. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.