Case 1310874/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Bethany Donnelly v Teezers Ltd (In liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1310874/2022
- Decision date
- 20 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Algazy KC
- Venue
- Birmingham via CVP
- Panel members
- Ms S Fritz, Mr C. Greatorex
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Bethany Donnelly
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Birmingham via CVP on 20 November 2023, before Employment Judge Algazy KC with panel members Ms S Fritz and Mr C. Greatorex, gave a unanimous judgment in Bethany Donnelly's claims against Teezers Ltd (in liquidation). The tribunal found that the claim of harassment related to disability succeeded only in respect of the allegation said to have occurred on 27 June 2022.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability succeeded only in respect of the allegation said to have occurred on 27 June 2022. | Upheld | Disability | £1,200 |
| Harassment | The remaining claims of harassment related to disability were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The claim of harassment related to sex was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim of direct disability discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,200
- 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.