Case 1305048/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Sarah Jones v The Feelgood Group Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305048/2024
- Decision date
- 31 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney Appearances
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Sarah Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing at the Midlands West Employment Tribunal on 29 January 2025 before Employment Judge Gidney. The claimant, Sarah Jones, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Robert Clarke. The judgment states that the hearing was conducted by Cloud Video Platform and that oral reasons were given at the hearing.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s harassment claim under s26 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. It also recorded that the public interest disclosure claim under s47B and s103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. The extracted judgment does not set out any merits findings on those claims.
The tribunal further found that the claimant’s mental impairment consisting of stress, anxiety and depression does qualify as a disability within s6 Equality Act 2010. No monetary award, compensation, or other remedy is recorded in the written judgment, and the note states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment records this claim as dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant; no merits determination is given. The extracted text does not specify the protected characteristic relied on for the harassment claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Public interest disclosure claim under s47B and s103A ERA. The judgment records dismissal upon withdrawal by the claimant; no merits determination is given. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.