Case 1303177/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Ingram v Tettenhall College — 2024
- Case reference
- 1303177/2022
- Decision date
- 1 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds
- Panel members
- Mr J Kelly, Mr R White
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Ingram
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn a liability judgment dated 1 February 2024, Employment Judge Edmonds sitting with Mr J Kelly and Mr R White found that Ms R Ingram’s complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and that she had been unfairly dismissed. The tribunal also found that her complaint of indirect sex discrimination was well-founded and succeeded, and it determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that she was entitled to a redundancy payment.
The tribunal rejected the claim for breach of contract in relation to notice pay, holding that it was not well-founded. It also rejected the complaint of less favourable treatment of part-time workers. No remedy figures were fixed in this judgment because the matter was listed for a separate one-day remedy hearing on 7 May 2024, with directions for updated schedules of loss and other remedy-hearing preparation.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint was of indirect sex discrimination and that it was well-founded and succeeds. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This related to notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | The judgment describes this as a complaint of less favourable treatment of part-time workers. | 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.