Case 1305720/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Chauhan-Sultan v Dr Julie Michelle Harrison & Partners t/a Portland Medical Practice — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305720/2024
- Decision date
- 14 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bennett REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Chauhan-Sultan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the claimant applied for the response to be struck out. The Tribunal decided that the application did not succeed, and the response to the complaints of pregnancy/maternity discrimination, marriage discrimination and victimisation was not struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1).
The Tribunal also made a preparation time order. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant GBP360, calculated as 8 hours at GBP45 per hour, within 30 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The preliminary judgment did not determine the merits of this complaint; it recorded that the claimant's application to strike out the response to this complaint did not succeed. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | The preliminary judgment did not determine the merits of this complaint; it recorded that the claimant's application to strike out the response to this complaint did not succeed. | Other | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
| Victimisation | The preliminary judgment did not determine the merits of this complaint; it recorded that the claimant's application to strike out the response to this complaint did not succeed. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a preparation time order of 8 hours at GBP45 per hour. | Upheld | — | £360 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £360
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)
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.