Case 1302088/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Wilson (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302088/2022
- Decision date
- 6 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
- Panel members
- Mrs J Whitehill, Mr J Kelly
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr P Wilson (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Birmingham on 2 to 6 October 2023 before Employment Judge Gaskell with members Mrs J Whitehill and Mr J Kelly. It unanimously found that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent. On that basis, the claims for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were dismissed.
The tribunal also found that the respondent did not, at any time material to the claim, act towards the claimant in contravention of section 39 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant's complaint of direct sex discrimination under section 120 of that Act was dismissed.
The only monetary award recorded was £269.23 gross for unpaid holiday pay. No separate breakdown of compensation, interest, or other remedy components was given in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found the respondent did not act in contravention of section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 and dismissed the direct sex discrimination complaint. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal made an award of £269.23 gross for unpaid holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £269 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £269
- across all upheld claims
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.