Loading…

’s evidence that she had raised the issue of the lack of facilities on September in her appeal in December 2020 was not disputed.10 58. I took into account that both of the claims in the proposed amendments sought to rely on facts pled in the original ET 1, and that it was the — employment tribunal cases | Tribunal Watch

Employer file

Employment tribunal cases against ’s evidence that she had raised the issue of the lack of facilities on September in her appeal in December 2020 was not disputed.10 58. I took into account that both of the claims in the proposed amendments sought to rely on facts pled in the original ET 1, and that it was the

Since 2017, ’s evidence that she had raised the issue of the lack of facilities on September in her appeal in December 2020 was not disputed.10 58. I took into account that both of the claims in the proposed amendments sought to rely on facts pled in the original ET 1, and that it was the has appeared as a respondent in 1 employment tribunal case, with £0 in total awards recorded against the employer.

Total cases: 1
Total awarded against: £0
Largest award: —
Most common claim: Disability discrimination

Indexed: 5 May 2026

Cases by claim type

1 distinct category

#	Claim type	Cases
01	Disability discrimination	1

All cases

1 case · chronological

Case ref.	Decided	Jurisdiction	Claimant	Claim types	Award
4110004/2021	14 June 2022	Scotland	Mrs Natalie Ann Wright	Disability discrimination	—

Methodology

Data extracted from published employment tribunal judgments on gov.uk. Case reference, decision date, judge, venue and claim categories come from structured metadata. Claimant and respondent names are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Outcomes and compensation are not yet populated for every case — see how the data is built.