Cases6004531/2024

Claimant v Queen Anne Street Medical Centre Ltd

19 December 2025Before Employment Judge A. TinnionLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(disability)failed

The tribunal found the claim of direct disability discrimination under s.13 of the Equality Act 2010 was not well founded. Reasons were given orally at the hearing but are not contained in the written judgment.

Harassment(disability)failed

The tribunal found the claim of harassment related to disability under s.26 of the Equality Act 2010 was not well founded. Reasons were given orally at the hearing but are not contained in the written judgment.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

The tribunal found the wages claim under s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against the first respondent was not well founded. Reasons were given orally at the hearing but are not contained in the written judgment.

Breach of Contractfailed

The tribunal found the breach of contract claim seeking notice pay against the first respondent was not well founded. Reasons were given orally at the hearing but are not contained in the written judgment.

Facts

Mrs Koleva brought claims against Queen Anne Street Medical Centre Ltd and Mrs S Briggs alleging direct disability discrimination, harassment related to disability, unlawful deduction of wages, and breach of contract seeking notice pay. The case involved her employment at a medical centre. A four-day final hearing was held remotely in December 2025.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all of Mrs Koleva's claims, finding that none were well founded. The tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing. All claims of disability discrimination, harassment, wages deduction and breach of contract failed.

Practical note

This case demonstrates the importance of meeting the burden of proof in discrimination claims, particularly for litigants in person facing represented respondents in the healthcare sector.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

EqA 2010 s.13EqA 2010 s.26ERA 1996 s.13

Case details

Case number
6004531/2024
Decision date
19 December 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No