Case 6024002/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Heyman v Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board — 2026
- Case reference
- 6024002/2025
- Decision date
- 31 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Mr M Lewis, Mrs J Beard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Heyman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant’s claim for harassment relating to age and her claim for direct age discrimination. It also dismissed her claim described in the judgment as discriminatory constructive unfair dismissal.
The tribunal further refused the respondent’s application for a costs order against the claimant. The application had been made on the basis that the claimant’s conduct in bringing and pursuing the claims was unreasonable and that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success, but the tribunal refused costs on a discretionary basis.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The written judgment therefore states the outcomes but does not set out the tribunal’s detailed reasoning or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment states this was a claim for harassment relating to age. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states this was a claim for direct age discrimination. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim for 'discriminatory constructive unfair dismissal'. With no written reasons, it is recorded here as constructive dismissal; the discrimination aspect is not separately particularised in the judgment text provided. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.