Case 1302003/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Flanagan v OK Diners Limited and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302003/2022
- Decision date
- 24 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Members
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr D McIntosh, Mrs S Bannister
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss D Flanagan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final hearing took place at Birmingham on 21 to 24 August 2023 before Employment Judge Camp, sitting with members Mr D McIntosh and Mrs S Bannister. The claimant, Miss D Flanagan, was represented by Mr A Lloyd, solicitor, and the respondent was represented by Ms C Jennings, counsel. The judgment records that respondent 2 had been withdrawn.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's entire claim. That claim comprised complaints of automatically unfair dismissal under section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, wrongful dismissal described as breach of contract in relation to notice pay, and discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010. The written record states that the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records a complaint of automatically unfair dismissal under section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The wrongful dismissal complaint is described as breach of contract in relation to notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment records a discrimination complaint under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 18 Equality Act 2010
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.